F 290 
.P56 
Copy 1 




Book_. ■ r\^ Co 



OFh'HJXAl^ lJO>fA'riOI<J. 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 



A STUDY OF THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF GEORGIA 

FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE CIVIL WAR, 

WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO 

FEDERAL RELATIONS. 



ULRICH BONNELL PHILLIPS, A. M., Ph. D., 

> ; 
SOMETIME FELLOW IX COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; SOMETIME FELLOW 
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ; INSTRUCTOR IN HIS- 
TORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 



[The Justin Winsor Prize (if the American Hi.storical Association was awarded to the 
anthor for this monograph.] 



(From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901, 
Vol. II, pages 3-224, with twelve plates. ) 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICK. 

1902. 



r-7 







jAN 13 1303 
D. ofD, 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 



A STl'DY OF THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF OEOKGIA FROM 
THE REVOLT'TION TO THE CIVIL WAR, AVITH PAR- 
TICULAR REGARD TO FEDERAL RELATIONS. 



By ULRICH BONNELL PHILLIPS, A. M., Ph. D., 

SOMETIME P^ELLOW IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; SOMETIME FELLOW IN THE 

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ; INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY IN 

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 



[The Justin Wiusor Prize of the American Historieal Assoeiatioir was awarded to the 
author for this monograph.] . 



PREFACE 



As a result of listening to a \eiy suggestive lecture b}- Dr. 
F. J. Turner upon American sectionalism, I set to work some 
years ago to study the efl'ect of nullification upon Georgia 
politics. The search for information in the Georgia news- 
papers of the nullification period quickly showed me that I 
had to deal with numerous complexities in the local field 
which to be understood needed more than a knowledge of 
the main current of American politics. The conditions in 
Georgia had been ev^olved through the influence of men and 
events now long forgotten, and those local conditions were 
destined to iuiportance in shaping the history of the country 
at large. The study of the whole situation with its recurring 
changes has proved absorbing. My eftort has been to seek 
out the causes of things, and to follow developments to their 
conclusion. T'he work has expanded, almost of itself, until it 
has reached the present compass of a complete surve}^ of the 
antebellum period of the State's history. I have declined 
to adopt the suggestion of several gentlemen who have 
wished me to add the period of the Civil War and Recon- 
struction to my view, because the cataclysm of the sixties 
is foreign to the sequence of my narrative. The discussion 
of that decade would involve so many new influences and 
complications that the unity of the monograph would be 
destroyed. 

It is not difficult for one whose native environment is the 
Cotton Belt to orient himself into antebellum Georgia. I 
have made little use, however, of the historical imagination. 



(> PEEFACE. 

The method is that of the investigator rather than the liter- 
ary historian. The work is intended to ])e a thorough scien- 
tific treatment of its siil)]"ect. No pains have been spared in 
obtaining exhaustive and accurate information. I have juade 
research in person in every important library in America, 
and in several of those abroad, and have made use of a large 
amount of material which is in the possession of private 
individuals. The most useful collections of material for the 
work have been found in the University of Georgia Library, 
the Carnegie Library of Atlanta, the Congressional Library, 
and the libraries of the Historical Societies of Georgia, New 
York, and Wisconsin. 

The two chapters dealing with the local parties in Georgia 
were submitted as a master's thesis at the University of 
Georgia in 1899. The monograph, as a whole, is ni}^ doctor's 
dissertation at Columbia University in 1902. For sugges- 
tions, criticism, and encouragement in the work, I am 
indebted to Dr. J. H. T. McPherson, of Athens, Ga., to Dr. 
F. J. Turner, of Madison, Wis., and especially to Dr. W. A. 
Dunning, of New York City. To these gentlemen 1 must 
express mv sincere gratitude. To numerous librarians, and 
to persons possessing manuscripts, newspapers, or other 
material which I have used, I can at this time only render a 
sweeping expression of thanks for courtesies shown me. 

Ulrich B. Phillips. 
Milledgeville, Georgia. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I.— THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

Page. 

Condition of Georgia at the close of the Revolution 15 

Attitude toward a union of the States 16 

The confederation unsatisfactory 16 

The Annapolis convention 17 

Response of Georgia 17 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 17 

Policy of the Georgia delegates 17 

Georgia ratifies the Federal Constitution 21 

Adopts a new State constitution 22 

Case of Chisholm v. Georgia 24 

Attitude of the State 26 

The eleventh amendment 28 

Georgia's Western lands 29 

The Yazoo land sale 30 

Popular indignation in Georgia 31 

The sale rescinded 32 

The purchasers protest 32 

Attitude of Congress 32 

Government established for the western territory 33 

Remonstrance of Georgia, 1800 33 

Conciliatory spirit 34 

Cession of the Western lands, 1802 34 

The Yazoo claims in Congress 35 

Case of Fletcher ;;. Peck 36 

Settlement of the claims 37 

Foreign affairs 38 

State rights in abeyance 38 

CHAPTER II. — THE ACQUISITION OP THE CREEK LANDS. 

Creek cessions to the colony of Georgia 39 

The Creeks in the American revolution 39 

Indian affairs under the confederation 40 

Treaties of Galphinton, Hopewell, and Shoulderbone 40 

Dissatisfaction of the Creeks 41 

Alexander McGillivray 41 

Treaty of New York, 1790 42 

7 



8 CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Protest of Georgia - - 42 

Theories of the Indian status -lo 

Maraudings on the frontier 44 

Exasperation of the Georgians 44 

Concihation 45 

Treaty at Coleraine - 46 

Elijah Clarke 47 

Illegal settlement up( >n Creek lands 47 

Destroyed by the State government 48 

Public opinion in Georgia 48 

Creek cessions of 1802 and 1804 49 

Conspiracy of the Western Creeks 50 

Creek war, 1813-14. Andrew Jackson 51 

Treaty of Fort Jackson 51 

Cessions of 1818 and 1821 52 

Impatience of Georgia for more lands 53 

Tenacity of the Creeks 54 

George M. Troup 55 

Treaty of Indian Spring, 1 825 56 

William Mcintosh 56 

Factions among the Creeks 56 

Mcintosh murdered 57 

President Adams repudiates the treaty 58 

Antagonism of Adams and Troup 58 

Treaty of Washington, 1826 59 

Governor Troup defies the President 63 

Attitude of Congress 64 

Cession of the remaining ( rjek lands in ( ieorgia 65 

CllAI'TEK HI. THE KXI'ULSION OF THK CHEUOKKES. 

Early Cherokee cessions <>6 

Cherokees in the American revolution 66 

Tenacity of the tribe for its Georgia lands Vu 

Cessions of 1817 and 1819 68 

Refusal to make further cessions 69 

The Cherokee chiefs "0 

Attitude of the United States Government 70 

Progress of the Indiana toward civilization 71 

Attitude of Georgia "2 

Discovery of gold in north (ieorgia 72 

Conflict of authority "'"5 

Laws of Georgia, 1830, destroy tiie Cherokee government 73 

President Jackson 73 

Judge A. S. Clayton "4 

Chief Justice Marshall 74 

Governor Gilmer 75 

Tassel' s case 75 

Case of the Ch(>rokee Nation /•. (ieorgia 76 



CONTENTS. 9 

Page. 

The missionaries to the Cherokees 79 

Worcester appeals to the Supreme Court 80 

Policy of Go /ernor Lumpkin 81 

Case of Worcester v. Georgia 81 

Jackson refuses to enforce Marshall's decision 82 

Graves' s case 84 

The Cherokees despondent 84 

Factions in the tribe 85 

Treaty of New Echota, 1835 86 

Removal of the Cherokees, 1838 86 

CHAPTER IV. THE TROUP AXU CLARKE PARTIES. 

Continuity of parties in Georgia 87 

Their economic and social basis 87 

Influence of the streams of immigration 88 

The frontier 89 

Parties in the RevoUition 89 

Federalist and Republican parties 90 

Presidential election of 1796 91 

Disappearance of the Federalist party 92 

The rise of personal factions 93 

James Jackson '. 94 

William H. Crawford 94 

The Broad River settlement of Virginians 96 

The North Carolinian settlement 96 

The South (jeorgia aristocrats 96 

George M. Troup 97 

John Clarke 97 

Development of personal factions 98 

Checked by the war of 1812 99 

The election of governor, 1819, 1S21, and 1823 100 

The gubernatorial campaign of 1825 103 

Character of the local vote 104 

Its relation to economic geography 105 

Economic and social conditions 106 

Presidential election of 1824 108 

Period of quiet in politics, 1825 to 1S31 Ill 

Indian affairs, 1825 Ill 

Change of party names 112 

CHAPTER V. THE STATE RIGHTS AND INIOX PARTIES. 

Quiescence on State sovereignty, 1798 to 1823 113 

Origin of the protective tariff 113 

Internal improvements 114 

The Colonization Society 1 115 

The struggle for State rights renewed 115 

The tariff of 1828 '. 117 

Andrew Jackson 119 



10 CONTENTS. 

Page. 

The tariff of 1832 120 

Constitutional interpretation 121 

State rights 121 

State sovereignty 122 

Nullification 123 

Th9 attitude of Georgia 124 

Wilson Lumpkin 125 

Election of governor, 1831 126 

Character of the vote 127 

State rights meetings 129 

State sovereignty convention, November, 1832 130 

Conservatism of the legislature 131 

Local factions and leaders 132 

Attitude of Georgians toward the Constitution 132 

Augustin S. Clayton 133 

John M. Berrien 133 

George R. Gilmer 134 

John Forsyth 134 

William H. Crawford 134 

George M. Trou}) 134 

Wilson Lumpkin , 135 

Election of governor, ; 1833 136 

State Rights party convention, 1833 ^ 137 

Presidential election, 1836 138 

Local affairs, 1837 to 1840 139 

Influence of economic geography 140 

Progress and lack of progress 141 

CHAPTER VI. THE WHIGS AND THE DEMOCRATS: SLAVERY. 

The origin of the Whig party 143 

The opposition in Georgia to Andrew Jackson 143 

Merging of the State Rights party with the Whigs 144 

Merging of the Union party with the Democrats 146 

Presidential campaign of 1840 147 

Local questions 147 

Campaign of 1844; Clay defeated 148 

Status of slavery in Georgia 151 

Colonial history 151 

Laws regulating slaves .' 152 

Patriarchal system 154 

Free persons of color 155 

Interstate slave trade 155 

The cotton gin 157 

The Colonization Society; its inefficiency 158 

The abolition agitation . . S 158 

Southern sensitiveness 159 

The slavery cjuestion enters politics 161 

Sectionalism in the national parties 162 



CONTENTS. 11 

Page. 

The compromise of 1850 ^'^'^ 

Radical agitation in Georgia l^'"" 

Pacified l)y Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb l'^-* 

The Georgia platform of 1850 ^^ 

Cobb elected governor, 1851 1*56 

Presidential campaign of 1852 ^^' 

Decline of the Whig party ^^^ 

Unstable alignment of the local parties 1|^'* 

Attitude of Georgians toward the Union 1 ' 

CHAPTER VII. THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRU(4(iLE AND ITS KESll/rS. 

The Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 ^^1 

Stephen A. Douglas ^^^ 

Popularity of the bill in the South Ip 

The bill enacted into law ."■ 1^'^ 

Public sentiment for and against it l^-^ 

The struggle in Kansas ^^"^ 

The Democratic convention of 1856 1 ' '^ 

Factions in the party ^"J* 

Desire of the South for slavery extension 1 75 

The Dred Scott case • 1^^ 

Developments in Kansas 1 ' ^ 

Readjustment of political parties 17/^ 

The Know Nothings in Georgia 1 " 

Policy of Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens 178 

Benjamin H. Hill 180 

The Democratic party in Georgia, 1857 180 

/Joseph E. Brown ^^^ 

Quiet in politics, 1858 182 

Strength of the sectional feeling 183 

The Republican party at the North 183 

Rumors of war, 1859 185 

John Brown's raid 186 

Southern opinion solidified 187 

The Democratic party in 1860 188 

The convention at Charleston 188 

Dilemma of the Georgians 189 

Attitude of A. H. Stephens and H. V. Johnson 189 

/Joseph E. Brown and Howell Cobb 189 

Robert Toombs - 190 

The Democratic convention at Baltimore 190 

Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell 191 

Lincoln elected 191 

Sentiment in Georgia 192 



12 CONTENXe. 

CHAPTER VIII. — THE SECESSION OF THE STATE OF (;EOR(UA. 

Page. 

Early theories of secession : The Hartford convention 193 

Effect of the Kansas struggle in developing secession spiiit in 

Georgia 193 

Alarm at the growth of the llepulilican party 194 

Lincoln's election 194 

Governor Brown advises resistance to Northern aggression 194 

Toomhs and Stephens 195 

The legislature calls a convention of the people 196 

Military preparations 197 

Statement of Southern grievances 197 

The radical leadership of the governor 197 

Howell Cohb favors secession • 198 

Stephens opposed to immediate secession 199 

Toombs's dispatch, December 23, 1860 200 

Election of delegates to the secession convention 201 

Seizure of Fort Pulaski by Georgia forces 201 

('haracter of the convention 202 

Its proceedings 203 

Adoption of the ordinance of secession 203 

Attitude of the minority 204 

The local vote in the Presidential election of 1860 206 

Contrasted with the local attitude toward secession 206 

Ciuestion of the conservatism of secession 207 

Comparison of the courses pursued by Toombs 207 

Howell Cobb 207 

A. H. Stephens 207 

H. Y. Johnson 207 

E. A. Nisbet 208 

B. H. Hill 208 

Thomas R. II. Cobb 208 

/Joseph E. Brown 208 

C. J. Jenkins 208 

Conclusion 210 

BIULIOCJRAPHV. 

Histories of Georgia 211 

Local and special histories 212 

Biographies and memoirs 213 

Georgia laws 215 

Public documents 21 5 

Works on State rights and secession 216 

Works on slavery 216 

History of the Indians 217 

Maps of Georgia 217 

Files of Georgia newspapers 218 



LIST OF MAPS OF GEORGIA. 

Page. 

1. Indian cessiony. (From Eighteenth Report Bureau American 

Ethnology, with alterations) 40 

2. Presidential election of 1796 ^^1 

3. Census of 1800, whites and negroes 92 

4. Gubernatorial election of 1825 104 

5. Census of 1824, w^hites and negroes 10<i 

6. Gubernatorial election of 1831 1 26 

7. Products of the State, 1835 140 

8. Presidential election of 1848 I'^O 

9. Presidential election of 1860 -'05 

10. Census of 1860, whites and negroes 2()(i 

11 . N'ote on secession, 1860 209 

12. The Georgia frontier, 1780 217 

13 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS 



CHAPTER I. -THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 



The clo.se of the war for American independence found the 
little commonwealth of Georgia in a sadly disorganized con- 
dition so far as concerned finance and industry, but with a 
self -consciousness and an appreciation of its possibilities which 
had been brought into existence only by the stress of war 
times. The gain in public spirit far more than counterbal- 
anced the loss of material goods. As a colony Georgia had 
been the most dependent of all the colonies; as a State she 
was destined for many years to struggle against tendencies 
which her citizens believed would bring about a greater tyr- 
anny than that from which they had escaped. 

The course of events in the South during the Revolution 
developed certain strong opinions in Georgia which were sub- 
sequently of powerful influence. The dreadful warfare be- 
tween Whig and Tory neighbors led to the conviction that 
while dift'erence of opinion in public afl'airs is natural and 
wholesome, the commonwealth ought to be united when once 
a polic}' has been adopted, and especially when an outside 
power is involved. An attempt of South Carolina to destroy the > 

political existence of Georgia by merging the two States into / 
one aroused the indignation of Georgians and heightened their 
esteem for autonomy and independence.* The spread of a \ 
rumor, when the extreme South was in the hands of the British, J 
that peace was about to be made on the basis of the retention / 
of South Carolina and Georgia as colonies, while the independ- 
ence of the other States was to be recognized, developed 

<«C. C. Jones, History of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 275. W. B. Stevens, History of Georgia, vol. 
2,P.B02. ^^ 



\ 



10 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

a lively anxiety for the preservation of the Union of the 
States," The proximity of powerful Indian tribes, and the 
Spanish possession of Florida, after 1783, made Georgia an 
outpost against two powers which might become hostile, and 
thus tended to further strengthen the desire among the citi- 
xens for a permanent arrangement looking to mutual support 
among the States. For several reasons, then, the State was 
in favor of a strong central government in control of inter- 
national affairs and matters of broad scope, while on the 
other hand it was not willing to make a complete surrender 
of its own political independence. A federal system of gov- 
ernment, and none other, would meet the requirements. 

The arrangements by which the United States carried on 
the war against Great Britain had been little more than an 
ill-defined league between independent powers. The Arti- 
cles of Confederation, which secured adoption only a short 
while before the cessation of hostilities, were hardly an 
improvement upon the preceding provisional organization. 
Month by month the unsatisfactory nature of the Confedera- 
tion became more patent and more distressing to all citizens 
who looked to a prosperous career for the American people 
under a stable government, j^et large numbers of men were 
to ])e found in many of the States who were firmly opposed 
to any sacrifice of authority b}^ the members of the Confed- 
eration. Jealousies among the commonwealths and i-eal or 
fancied advantages which several of the States held ovei- their 
neighbors increased the difficulty in reaching a solution. 

By the summer of 1786 the inefficiency of the confederate 
government had become intolerable, but the problem of 
securing improvements remained most delicate and compli- 
cated. The fact that it was accomplished in a short time, and 
without great confusion, demonstrates the adroitness and 
abilit}' of the statesmen of the time. 

The convention which, upon the initiative of Virginia, 
assembled at Annapolis in 1786 to consider interstate questions 
of a commercial nature, was led by Alexander Hamilton to 
extend its view over the general field of American political 

a Of. " Observations upon the effects of certain late political suggestions: by the dele- 
gates of Georgia" in the Continental Congress. This pamphlet, originally printed in 
1781, was reprinted in a limited edition in the Wormsloe series in 1847. The text may 
also be found in White's Historical Collections of Georgia, pp. 10(i to 110, 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 17 

conditions. The result was the adoption on September 14, 
of a recommendation to the Cong-ress and to the legishitures 
of the several States represented at Annapolis that commis- 
sioners be appointed from each of the thirteen States to meet 
in Philadelphia in May of the next year "to devise such 
provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the 
Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exi- 
gencies of the Union."" The Congress approved the plan 
and called the convention accordingly. 

In response to the invitation which Georgia received, the 
assembly passed an ordinance February 10, 1787, appointing 
William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Wal- 
ton, William Houston, and Nathaniel Pendleton as commis- 
sioners for the convention. 

The second Monday, or the 11th, of Ma^', 1787, had been set 
for the assembling of the convention, but a quorum of States 
was not obtained until the 25th of the month, when the regu- 
lar sittings were begun. On that day William Few was pres- 
ent from Georgia, but by the State ordinance two delegates 
were required to attend before the State could be officially 
represented. Georgia had no vote in the convention until 
the arrival of Mr. Pierce, on May 31. Mr. Houston reached 
Philadelphia on June 7 and Mr. Baldwin on June 11. Messrs. 
Walton and Pendleton are nowhere mentioned as having 
attended. 

Soon after the assembling of the convention it was decided 
that in it, as was the rule in Congress during the Confedera- 
tion, each State represented should have one vote. Georgia 
used her vote constantly in advocating the policy of strength- 
ening the central government. This was to be done by dejDriv- 
ing the State legislatures of some of their powers without 
removing all authority from them. Mr. Baldwin, the most\^ 
influential member of the Georgia delegation, said in the con- \ 
vention on June 2!): "It appears to be agreed that the gov- \ 
ernment we should adopt ought to be energetic and formidable, / 
yet I would guard against the danger of being too formida- ' 
ble." His colleague, Mr. Pierce, expressed the same opinion 
on the same day. 



"Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, vol. l,p. 118 ('Id edition) 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 2 



18 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Tluit the Georgia delegates acted in accord with public senti- 
ment at home the following extracts from the cokirans of a 
contemporary Augusta newspaper will tend to show: 

'* We hear with great satisfaction that the convention for 
revising the confederation is now assembled and doing busi- 
ness at Philadelphia. Among the many important matters to 
be taken under consideration by that august body the follow- 
ing are said to be the principles: 1st. That the Thirteen states 
be divided into three distinct Republics, who ought to leak 
together for their common defense as so many separate gov- 
ernments independent of each other; 2ndly. If the Thirteen 
states remain as they are confederated, to lessen their sover- 
eignty by abolishing their State Legislatures and leaving the 
whole laws to be made by the national congress, assembly, or 
parliament; 3rdly. The Thirteen states to remain as they are, 
except that their laws be revised by Congress so as to make 
the whole act in conformity as of one, and the executive 
powers of Congress enlarged. It is nuich to be wished that 
the latter may be adopted.''" 

When the debate began on the question as to whether rep- 
resentation in the National Assembly should be divided equally 
among the States or should be apportioned to the population. 
Georgia, in a measure, astonished the States of her own rank 
in strength and population by joining the side of the large 
States, seemingly against her own interests. This was ac- 
counted for by Luther Martin in his letter to the speaker of 
the house of delegates of Maryland: 

"It may be thought surprising, sir, that Georgia, a State 
now small and comparatively trilling in the LTnion, should 
advocate this system of unequal representation, giving up her 
present equality in the Federal Government and sinking her- 
self almost to total insignificance in the scale; but, sir, it must 
])e considered that Georgia has the most extensive territory 
in the Union, being as large as the whole island of Great 
Britain and thirty times as large as Connecticut. This system 
being designed to preserve to the States their whole territory 
un])roken and to prevent the erection of new States within the 
territory of any of them, Georgia looked forward to when, 

(( Georgia State Gazette or Independent Register, July 21, 1787. This weekly newspaper 
was published at Augusta by John E. Smith, printer to the SUite. It afterwards became 
the Augusta Chronicle. 



aEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 19 

her population being increased in some measure proportional 
to her territory, she should rise in the scale and give law to 
the other States, and hence we found the delegation of Georgia 
warmly advocating the proposition of giving the States unequal 
representation.'" 

The discussion of the method of election of Senators brought 
forth several speeches from the Georgia delegation. On June 
6, Mr. Pierce spoke in favor of the election of the first branch 
of the National Legislature by the people and of the second hy 
the States, in order that the citizens of the States might be 
represented individually and collectively. On June 29, Mr. 
Baldwin declared that the second branch ought to be the rep- 
resentation of property and that it ought not to be elected as 
the first. 

When the question was put as to whether each State should 
have an equal vote in the Senate, there was an exciting scene 
in the convention. Five States had voted on either side of 
the issue, and when Georgia's turn arrived to cast her ballot 
her delegates had the deciding voice. Mr. Baldwin had 
already made known his opinion as siding with the larger 
States, but from the fear of disrupting the convention he 
abandoned his intention, divided the vote of his State, and 
thus caused the motion to be lost by a tie." 

In the apportionment of representation in the lower House 
South Carolina was given five seats and Georgia three. Both 
States made resolute efforts to increase their strength in the 
House, but were persistently voted down on every motion to 
that effect. The underlying reason for these attempts, which 
North Carolina and Virginia supported, was the desire to 
equalize the power of the South in the House with that of the 
North, which was given a slightly larger number of seats. 

The principle of assignment of the seats was that each State 
should be entitled to one representative for ever}' 30,000 of 
its inhabitants, according to the authoritative estimate, with 
slaves counted as five to three. It was known that on this 
basis Georgia should not be assigned three members, but the 
argument was accepted that the "unexampled celerity of its 
population " would cause the State to be entitled to that num- 
ber before the Constitution could be put in effect.^ 

"Madison Papers (Gilpin), p. 807. 6 lb., pp. 1054, 1060, 1076 



20 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

When the (][uestion of legislating against the slave trade 
arose in the convention, South Carolina took an extreme posi- 
tion, with Georgia approving her contentions. The delegates 
of the two States threatened that if the importation of slaves 
were not allowed, their States would undoubtedly refuse to 
ratify' the Constitution. Mr. Baldwin suggested that, if left 
to herself, Georgia would probably put a stop to the trade. 
From this prophecy, which was fulfilled in a decade, and from 
other sidelights on the subject, we have reason to doubt that 
the prohibitory clause would have led to the rejection of the 
Constitution by Georgia. The North was forced to yield to 
the stubbornness of South Carolina, supported by Georgia and 
North Carolina. A compromise w^as hnally reached, which 
was embodied in Article 1, section 9, of the Constitution: 
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of 
the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not 
be prohibited l)y the Congress prior to the year eighteen 
hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such 
importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*" 

The deliberations of the convention were brought to a close 
on September 17, 1787, and the engrossed Constitution was 
signed by delegates from each of the thirteen States except 
Rhode Island. The complete instrument was delivered to the 
Congress of the Confederation, which, on September 28, "Re- 
solved unanimously that the said report, with the resolutions 
and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the sev- 
eral legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of 
delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof, in con- 
formity to the resolves of the convention made and provided 
in that case." 

A copy of the Constitution and accompanying resolutions 
reached Georgia in time for publication at Augusta, in the 
Gazette, October 13, and the resolution of the Congress to 
subn]it it to the States was published a week later. The State 
legislature happened to l)e in session at the time, and on 
October 25 it resolved that a convention be elected on the 
da}' of the next general election, to consist of not more than 
three members from each county, to meet at Augusta in De- 
cember following, to consider the report and to reject or adopt 
any part or the whole thereof. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 21 

In the Georgia Gazette of December 15 there appears an 
article which states: '"'The t'ollov^dng• gentlemen are appointed 
in the convention for this State, and are the names only of 

those who have come to hand: For Green County, — 

Daniel, Robert Christmas, Middleton; for Wilkes 

County, George Mathews, Florence Sullivan, King"; 

for Burke County, Edward Telfair, Dr. Todd, George Wal- 
ton; for Glynn County, George Handley, Charles Hillery, 
John Milton." 

In the issue of December 29 there appears under date of 
December 28: "Yesterday twenty-four mendjers of the State 
convention met in this town and, being a quorum, proceeded 
to the choice of a president, when the Hon. John Wereat, 
esq., was elected to that important office. Mr. Isaac Briggs 
was appointed secretary. Members returned from Liberty 
County to serve in the convention: James Powell, John 
Elliott, James Maxwell, esqs. ; for Effingham County, Jenkin 
Davis, Nathan Brown, Caleb Howell, esqs." 

The Gazette of January 5, 1788, is quite disappointing, for 
it might naturally be expected to contain an account in detail 
of the debates and transactions of the convention. Instead, 
its only article relating to the subject reads: "We have the 
pleasure to announce to the public that on Wednesday last 
the convention of this State unanimously ratified the Federal 
Constitution in the words following," etc. The ratification 
bears all the names of the delegates above named, and also 
those of John Wereat, president and delegate for the county 
of Richmond, and Henry Osborne, James Seagrave, and 
Jacob Weed, of Camden County. The article in the Gazette 
closes with a statement that "as the last name was signed to 
the ratification a party of Colonel Armstrong's regiment, 
quartered in this town, proclaimed the joyful tidings oppo- 
site the statehouse by thirteen discharges of tw^o pieces of 
artillery." 

In point of the time which elapsed between the receipt of 
instructions from Congress and the ratification of the Consti- 
tution by the State, Georgia should be ranked second, if not 
first, indeed, for her delegates signed their resolutions only 
twenty-four days after Delaware had signified her approval, 
whereas ver}^ nearly a month was required for the transmission 



22 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

of news from Philadelphia to Georgia. But when dates are 
compared it is found that the ratifications by Delaware, Penn- 
sylvania, and New Jersey preceded that by Georgia; and when 
the States are listed according to the dates at which their 
notifications of approval reach the Congress, it is discovered 
that the news of ratification ])y two Eastern States had reached 
that bod}^ ])efore Georgia's communication was received, 

Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia are the only States 
whose conventions were unanimous in their approval of the 
instrument. The citizens of Georgia had no objections to a 
closer form of union among the several States. Their repre- 
sentatives had obtained practically all that they had seen lit 
to ask. Certainty of law and order between the States, guar- 
antees of support against the Spanish and Indians in the pos- 
sible emergency of war, non-interference in the realm of local 
affairs and in the matter of slavery and the slave trade, and 
full representation in the legislature of the General Govern- 
ment left nothing to be desired in the Constitution. 

Georgia was insignificant among the States, but her ratifica- 
tion of the Federal Constitution was very important. When 
it became known to the northward that a State with such 
intense Southern spirit had ratified so quickly and without 
an amendment or a dissenting voice, a thrill of encouragement 
was felt ])y the workers for the cause throughout the States, 
while the hearts of many anti-Federalists failed them." 

The Georgia State constitution, which was confessedly of a 
temporary character, had for some years been considered 
unsatisfactory. As soon as the activity of the State regarding 
the Federal Constitution came to an end, the matter of remod- 
eling the State government was vigorously undertaken with 
the purpose of adapting it better to the Federal system. The 
general assembly on January 30, 1788, resolved to name three 
citizens from each county "to be convened after nine States 
have adopted the Federal Constitution, to take under their con- 
sideration the alterations and amendments that are necessary 
to be made in the constitution of this State." After receiving- 
news of the ratification of New Hampshire, the ninth State, 
Governor Handley called this convention to meet on Novem- 
ber 4. It formulated a new constitution, which was published 

aCf.,T. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, vol. 1, p. 476. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 23 

in the State. Another convention was elected by the people 
earl}' in December, with the function of offering amendments 
to the proposed document, and it met on January 4, 1789. 
By eTanuary 20 its work was finished and the second conven- 
tion adjourned. 

The instrument, as then offered for adoption and as tinally 
adopted, differed from the one which it superseded in being 
much more systematic, and in containing several conservative 
but important new features. It established a bicameral legis- 
lature, and heightened the qualiffcations for members of the 
assembly. It is an interesting detail of these qualiffcations 
that, while only two years' residence in Georgia was required 
of a member of the lower house, he must have been a citizen 
of the United States for seven years; and for the senate, a 
similar requirement of three and nine years was made. This 
is the earliest instance where any such discrimination was 
made in a State constitution, and is indicative of the national 
spirit which existed among the people of Georgia at that 
time. 

Regarding the adoption of this second State constitution by 
Georgia, the following self-explanatory item occurs in the 
Georgia Gazette for May 9, 1789: " On Monday last (May 4) 
the third convention met in the Town Hall to consider the 
alterations proposed by the convention of January last to 
the constitution formed by the convention of 1788; and on 
Wednesday they finally adopted and ratified the new form of 
government, to commence in October next. * * * The 
new form being an assimilation to the Federal constitution, 
its notification and deposit was announced to the town by a 
discharge of eleven cannon, in honor of the federated states; 
when his Honor, with the President and the members of the 
convention, and the President and the members of the council, 
repaired to the Government House and drank a glass of wine 
to its prosperity." 

The eager ratification of the Federal Constitution in 1788 
was undoubtedly a truthful expression of the will of the peo- 
ple of Georgia, But the people, in ratifying, understood that 
the}^ did nothing more than was involved in the literal inter- 
pretation of their act. They adopted the Constitution in the 
capacity of the people of a sovereign State, delegating certain 
specified powers to the central government in order to increase 



v 



24 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

its efficiency, but reserving to themselves and to their pre- 
viously existing- State government all rights and powers 
which were not expressly thus delegated in the instrument. 
The new Constitution for the United States was accepted and 
welcomed as a reform upon the old one, and not as a revolu- 
tionizing instrument. Evidence of this may be found in sev- 
eral issues which arose almost contemporaneously with the 
adoption of the Constitution. Of these we may deal first with 
the celebrated case of Cliisolm v. Georgia before the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

At the August term of the Supreme Court in 1792 an 
action was brought b}^ a Mr. Chisolm, of South Carolina, to 
recover a sum of money by suit against the State of Georgia." 
Copies of the action were served by the United States marshal 
upon the governor and the attorney-general of the State of 
Georgia. On August 11, 1792, Mr. Randolph, the Attorney- 
General of the United States, as counsel for the plaintiff, 
moved "that unless the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable 
previous notice of this motion, cause an appearance to be 
entered in behalf of the said State on the fourth day of next 
term, or shall show cause to the contrary, judgment shall be 
entered against the said State, and a writ of incpiiry of dam- 
ages shall be awarded."" But on motion of Mr. Randolph it 
was ordered b}' the court that the consideration of this motion 
be postponed to the February term, 1793. At that term a 
written remonstrance and protestation against the exercise of 
jurisdiction in the cause was presented to the coui't on behalf 
of the State. In consequence of positive instructions from 
the State government, the attorneys who presented its protest 
declined to take any part in arguing the question. 

Mr. Randolph made an extensive argument on the nature of 
the American Govertunent. He urged that the States were 
sovereignties, but that they might combine in government, 
and that they had so combined in the Articles of Confedera- 
tion. When that system proved inefficient the Federal Con- 
stitution was established and produced a new order of things. 
"It derives it origin innnediately from the people; and the 
people are individually, under certain limitations, subject to 
the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities thereby 



"The case is reported in full in A. J. Dallas, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 2, pp. 
419 to 480. 



GEOEGIA ATSTD STATE RIGHTS. 25 

established. The States are in fact assemblages of these in- 
dividuals who are liable to process." "I hold it, therefore, 
no derog-ation of sovereignty in the States to submit to the 
Supreme Judiciary of the United States.'' The majority of 
the court gave decisions favorable to the plaintiff, Chief Jus- 
tice Ja}^ and Justice Wilson making strong arguments for the 
national character of the system which was erected by the 
United States Constitution of 1787. 

Justice IredeW gave the only dissenting opinion; and it is 
the one most interesting to us here, because it was in line 
with the convictions of the officials and of the people of 
Georgia. His argument was that the United States Supreme 
Court could not try a suit against a State by a citizen of 
another State. If such a case were within the general realm 
of the activity of the court the court would still be unable to 
try the action unless a Congressional act had established the 
appropriate procedure, whereas no such act had been passed. 
""Every State in the Union in every instance where its sover- 
eignty has not been delegated to the United States I consider 
to be as completely sovereign," he said, ''as the United States 
are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United 
States are sovereign as to all the powers actually surrendered; 
each State in the United States is sovereign as to all the 
powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, l)ecause the 
United States have no claim to any authority but such as the 
States have surrendered to them." The powers of the United 
States " require no aid from any State authorit}'. That is 
the great distinction between the old Articles of Confederation 
and the present Constitution." The power to try suits against 
a State, he concluded, is not expressly given to the United 
States Supreme Court, and therefore the court does not possess 
that power. 

As a result of the decision of the majority of the justices 
in favor of the plaintiff', it was ordered that notice be served 
upon the governor and attorney-general of Georgia, and in 
case the State should not appear in due form, or show cause 
to the contrary in the court by the first day of the next term, 
judgment by default should be entered against the State. 

Judgment was accordingly rendered against the State of 
Georgia in the February term of ITOi, and a writ of inquiry 
was awarded to the plaintiff'. But it was evident that the 



2G AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

State would not obey the writ if an attempt should be made 
to execute it; and it was further evident that no means of 
executing a judgment against a State was known to adminis- 
trative law. The judgment lay unenforced upon the court 
records until the eleventh amendment to the United States 
Constitution removed such questions from the cognizance of 
the court in 179S. 

The fact that there were a series of similar cases pending 
in the same court against several other States rendered the 
issue in the suit of Chisolm v. Georgia of interest in all sec- 
tions of the country. But we must now attend mainly the 
events in the narrower field of Georgia policy. 

On December 1-i, 1792, during the first session of the gen- 
eral assembly after the first notification to the State that 
Chisolm's suit was pending, a resolution was introduced in the 
Georgia house of representatives declaring that the suit, "if 
acquiesced in by this State, would not only involve the same 
in numberless lawsuits for papers issued from the treasury 
thereof to supply the armies of the United States, but would 
effectually destroy the retained sovereignty of the States, and 
would actually tend in its operations to annihilate the very 
shadow of the State governments, and to render them but 
tributary corporations to the Government of the United 
States." The resolution went on to suggest an *" explanatory' 
amendment" to the constitution." Apparentlv the motion 
was not carried, but it nevertheless outlined the policy which 
the State was to follow. 

Shortly after the decision was rendered by the Supreme 
Court, in February, 1793, Governor Telfair was notified of the 
judgment by the United States marshal of the district. At 
the opening of the next session of the legislature, November 
4, 1793, he discussed the subject in his annual message. That 
portion of the document reads: "A process from the Supreme 
Court of the United States at the instance of Chisolm, executor 
of Farquhar, has been served upon me and the attorne}'- 
general. 1 declined entering any appearance, as this would 
have introduced a precedent replete with danger to the 
Republic, and would have involved this State in complicated 
difficulties, abstracted from the infractions which it would 

a Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State, Dec. 22, 1792. H. V. Ames, Sta j Docu- 
ments on Federal Relations, p. 8. 



GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGNTS. 27 

have made in her retained sovereignty. The singular pre- 
dicament to which she has been reduced by savage inroads 
has caused an emission of paper upward of £150,000 since 
the close of the late war, a considerable part of which is still 
outstanding, and which in good faith and upon constitutional 
principles is the debt of the United States. 1 say were 
action admissible under such grievous circumstances, an anni- 
hilation of her political existence must follow. To guard 
against civil discord as well as the impending danger, permit 
me most ardently to request your most serious attention to 
the measure of recommending to the legislatures of the sev- 
eral States that they effect a remedy in the premises by 
amendment to the Constitution; and that, to give further 
weight to this matter, the delegation of this State in Congress 
be requested to urge that body to propose an amendment to 
the several legislatures."^' 

The House of Representatives adopted a report for the 
preparation of an address to the legislatures of the several 
States, looking toward the amendment which all men had in 
mind. A bill which passed the same House soon afterwards 
showed a much more radical spirit than had previously been 
manifested. 

The Journal of the House for November 19, 1793, records: 
"The House proceeded to resolve itself into a Committee of 
the Whole to take under consideration a bill to be entitled 
'An act declaratory of certain parts of the retained sover- 
eignty of the State of Georgia.' Mr. Speaker left the chair. 
Mr. McNeil took the chair of the committee, and some time 
being spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. 
McNeil, from the Committee of the Whole, reported that the 
committee had taken the bill under consideration, had gone 
through the same, and had made several amendments thereto, 
which he reported. And the bill as reported amended being 
read, a motion was made by Mr. Waldburger to strike the 
following section therein: 'And be it further enacted that 
any Federal marshal, attempting to levy on the territory of 
this State, or on the treasury, by virtue of an execution, by 
the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, for 
the recovery of any claim against the said State of Georgia 

n Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 9, 1793. Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, p. 8. 



28 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

shall be guilU^ of felony, and shall suffer death, without ben- 
efit of clergy, by being hanged,'' On question to strike out — 
yeas, 8; nays, 19. Ordered that the bill be engrossed for a 
third reading."'^' 

An item in the Journal of the same House for November 21, 
1793, records that on that day the bill was finally passed and 
sent to the Senate. The State senate probably realized that 
matters elsewhere were progressing so nicely toward the 
amendment of the Constitution that any such violent act was 
micalled for in Georgia. We find no record of the passage of 
the tire-eating bill through the upper House. 

Immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
case of Chisolm r. Georgia, a Massachusetts Senator intro- 
duced a bill into Congress for a constitutional amendment. 
The legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, 
each also proposed an amendment. The Congressional act for 
the change in the Constitution, or, as many preferred to call 
it, an explanatory clause, was sent to the States on March 5, 
1791, and its ratification was announced by the President on 
Jiinuary 8, 1798.^' 
/ The adoption of the eleventh amendment thus put an end 
-4.0 the controversy, which had caused much excitement. The 
whole matter was ill calculated to make the Georgians more 
national in spirit. Its chief value as an historical incident in 
this connection lies in the demonstration that the unanimous 
vote of the Georgia convention in 1788 was given in the under- 
standing that the State remained in possession of all residuary 
rights and powers. 

Other occasions for the expression by the State govern- 
ment of views on the intent of the Constitution arose in con- 
nection with the two subjects of Indian affairs and public 
lands. The history of Indian affairs may conveniently be 
postponed to subsequent chapters. The consideration of the 
developments concerning public lands and the Yazoo sale will 
lead us somewhat affeld before the constitutional question 
reappears, and will demonstrate in the later stages that after 
some years a reaction set in against the decided State sover- 
eignty views which prevailed in Georgia from 1789 to 1796. 

(I Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 23, 1793. 

6H. V. Ames, Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, pp. IfH!, 157, and 822. 
McMaster, History of the People of the U.S., vol. 2, p. 182. Of. Cohen v. Virffinin. in (i 
Wheaton, U. S. Reports, 406. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 29 

The treat}' of Paris m 1783 left Georgia in noniiiuil pos- 
session of a great expanse of territory stretctiing- from the 
Savannah River to the Mississippi. But of this region only 
the small portion Ijang east of the Oconee River was actually 
settled and possessed by the citizens. The ownership over 
the western lands consisted in the right merely to take pos- 
session of them after extinguishing the Indian title. Even 
this contingent ownership, called the right of preemption, 
was not held by Georgia without contestation. The United 
States Government was inclined for a time to urge that it 
alone possessed the right of preemption to the district south 
of Tennessee, but in seeking to support the argument it was 
forced to concede that the only valid rebuttal of the claim of 
Spanish possession of the region lay in the documents which 
established Georgia's ownership. 

Most of the States which possessed extensive claims to 
lands in the West ceded their claims to the United States 
about 1787. Georgia was not willing to make an unqualified 
gift of all her vacant territor}', but in 1788 she offered to 
Congress a grant of a district 1-10 miles wide, and stretching 
from the Chattahoochee River to the Mississippi, a district 
which constituted the southern half of the territory lying 
beyond the line of the Chattahoochee. But conditions were 
included in the offer. The State was to be confirmed in 
its possession of the lands which it did not cede and was to 
receive a reimbursement in the amount of $171,428.45, which 
it had expended in quieting and resisting the Indians, and of 
which a large portion was then outstanding in the bills of 
credit of the State. Congress rejected the ofl'er of Georgia, 
but resolved that it would accept a cession, if all the lands 
west of a line based on the Chattahoochee were offered, and if 
the conditions were suitably modified." 

The State government was not disposed to follow this sug- 
gestion of Congress. It was quite read}' to keep possession 
of all the lands to which it had claim, but was at some loss as 
to the best method of gaining the benefit of them for the 
State. In 1789 the legislature passed a law, at the suggestion 
of would-be purchasers, enacting a sale of some 25,000,000 
acres in the western district near the Yazoo River in three 



"American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. 1, p. 100. 



30 AMEEICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

parcels, to as many companies, for a total sum of about 
$200,000/' It was distinctly declared that the State would 
not trouble itself in the matter of extinguishing* the Indian 
title, or in adjusting disputes with previous settlers. The 
companies were required in the act to pay the full amount of 
the purchase money into the State treasury within two years. 
This stipulation was not f ultilled, and the agreement lapsed at 
the end of the period set. 

The fever of land speculation was beginning to run wild 
among the people of the United States. The members of the 
Yazoo companies of 1789 were greatly disappointed when they 
realized the failure of their plans. But some of the original 
movers were determined to persevere in their schemes, and 
numerous other enterprising men were eager to participate 
ill similar undertakings. 

The legislature of Georgia was induced to pass an act, 
approved by the governor on January 7, 1795, which enacted 
the sale of the greater part of the territory now comprised 
in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, in four districts to 
four new companies, for a total consideration of $500,000.* 

The corrupting influence which secured the passage of the 
act is not here in point. The important fact for our view is 
that the whole procedure was in open contravention of a 
law of the United States, Although the act was repudiated 
l)y the popular voice, those sections of it which deal with the 
theoretical power of the State in the premises may be taken 
as no great exaggeration of the convictions of the people. 
The act sets forth that although the United States had bv 
enactment declared its control over cessions of the Indian 
lands and had guaranteed the Creek Indians in the possession 
of all their lands west of the Oconee River, the State of 
Georgia had in no way transferred its right of soil or pre- 
emption. The right of preemption and the fee simple to the 
western lands were declared to be in the State, together with 
the right of disposing of the said lands. Upon the basis of 
this assertion the act proceeds to declare the sale of some 
35,000,000 acres of the lands in question. 



«C. H. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, p. 7. Stevens, Hist, of Ga., vol. 2, p. 464. 
Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 114. George Watkins, Compilation of the Laws of Ga., p. 3.S7. 

ft American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. 1, pp. 144, 156, and 157. Stevens, Hist, of 
Cia., vol. 2, p. 467. White, Statistics of Ga., p. 60. A. H. Chappell, Mi.scellanies of Georgia, 
vol. 2, p. 87. J. Hodg.son, Cradle of the Confederacy, p. 88. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 81 

As soo?i a.s information of the Yazoo sale reached President 
Washington he sent copies of the act to Congress, with a brief 
message to the effect that the matter involved was worthy of 
deep consideration. Before an}" further steps were taken at 
the capital the news arrived of important developments in 
Georgia, which rendered it advisable to postpone any Con- 
gressional action. 

While the Yazoo bill was yet awaiting the governors signa- 
ture, a petition was presented by William H. Crawford and 
other citizens of Columbia County, demonstrating the bad 
policy of the bill and asking that it be given the executive 
veto. As the news of the act spread over the State, accom- 
panied by rumors of bribery in the legislature, the indigna- 
tion of the citizens became aroused. The sale of the lands 
was condemned on all sides and in the roundest of terms. 
James Jackson, then a member of the United States Senate, 
resigned his seat in order to accept a nomination to the State 
legislature and devote his whole energy to accomplish the 
nullification of the sale. A conventipn of the people of the 
State, in May, condemned the act of the legislature and 
directed the attention of the next assembly to the matter of 
its repeal. 

In obedience to the clamorous popular demand, and under 
the powerful leadership of Jackson, the newly elected legisla- 
ture passed an act in February, 1796, which rescinded the act 
of the previous year as being dishonorable to the State and 
repugnant to the constitution, in that it pretended to grant 
monopolies and to establish an aristocracy, which, if permitted, 
would overthrow the democratic form of government. 

The framers of the rescinding act foresaw the struggle 
which would be made by the grantees under the act of 1795, 
and they took pains to discredit their claims by a declaration 
of their corrupt practices and to forestall their efforts by 
an assertion of State sovereigntj'. They stated in the act: 
''Whereas the free citizens of this State * * * are 
essentially the source of the sovereignty thereof * * * ; 
and whereas the will or constitution of the good people of 
this State is the only existing legal authority ^derived from 
the essential source of sovereignty * * * ; " and 
whereas, for various reasons stated, the ""usurped act"" of 
the Yazoo sale was unconstitutional, "be it enacted that 



32 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the 8iiid usurped act * * * is hereby declared ludl and 
void." All g-rants and claims arising^ from the act were 
declared of no effect, provision was made for the repayment 
of all moneys received at the treasury to those who had 
bought the lands, and direction was issued to the State 
autiiorities to assemble publicly in the near future to witness 
the expunging of all record of the "vile and fraudulent 
transaction" from the books of record of the State/' 

But the speculators were determined not to relinquish 
their enterprise so long as any hope of success remained. 
After it had become clear that the State government could 
not be shaken in its utter denial of the validity of the sale, 
the owners of the Yazoo scrip made appeal to the Federal 
authorities. 

The State government declared in the rescinding act of 1T'J6 
that no court existed in which an issue could be tried between 
a State and a citizen, and that if the contrary were true the 
dig-nit}^ of the State would not allow it to appear where its 
own sovereignty was in question. A constitutional conven- 
tion which assembled soon afterwards was made use of in 
order to give more authoritative utterance to the principles 
upon which the sale had been declared null. A section of the 
new constitution was made to read in part: '"All the territory 
without the present temporary line and [east of the Missis- 
sippi Riverj is now. of right, the property of the free citizens 
of this State, and held by them in sovereignty inalienable but 
by their consent." The next section repeats the nullification 
of the Yazoo sale, and orders all moneys received for the 
lands to be returned to the purchasers or held indetinitelv, 
awaiting their demand. The constitution containing these 
clauses was ratified in 1798, and continued to be the funda- 
mental law of the State until 1861. 

This was the final dictum of the State of Georgia in the 
Yazoo matter. The question of the binding effect of the sale 
came before the Central Government at a later time as an issue 
between the Fedei"alist and Republican parties. 

Meanwhile the widespread agitation over the Yazoo com- 
plication led Cong-ress to inquire anew whether Georgia had 
indisputable right over the land in (juestion. A special com- 

<i rublic Lands, vul. 1, \i. 156. 



GEOBGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 38 

mittee of the Senate reported March 2, 179T, after an examina- 
tion of documents. The roj^al proclamation of 1763 impressed 
the committee very strongly, because it reserved under the 
sovereignty of the King all lands l.ying westward of the 
sources of the rivers which flowed into the Atlantic. Hence 
they reported that Georgia could have no good claim to the 
western lands. But they neglected to observe that the King's 
instructions to Governor Wright, issued a year later than 
the proclamation of 1703, distinctly extended the limits of 
Georgia to the Mississippi River. The committee advised 
that commissioners be appointed to make an amicable agree- 
ment with Georgia, and that, after obtaining Georgia's con- 
sent, a Territorial government be established over the region." 

In April, 1798, Congress enacted a statute appointing the 
commissioners to confer with Georgia, and at the same time 
providing a government for the Mississippi Territory, without 
waiting to receive an expression of consent from the State 
authorities.* A Congressional act of June, 1800, confirmed 
that of 1798 and put the Territorial government into opera- 
tion.'' Each of these acts included clauses providing that 
they should not impair the right of Georgia to the jurisdic- 
tion or to the soil in the region; but it is difficult to see how 
the Territorial government could have had authority to per- 
form its functions without impairing Georgia's jurisdiction. 

During the session of the general assembly of Georgia 
which l)egan toward the close of 1800 a resolution was 
adopted remonstrating against the two acts of Congress. The 
tone of this document is so mild and obsequious as to mark a 
new epoch in the Federal relations of the State. "The Legis- 
lature of the State of Georgia," it began, "approach the 
Legislature of the Union with that respect and veneration 
which the representative body of the nation ought ever to 
command. They approach it to lay the complaints of Georgia 
before it and to solicit a redress of the grievances which her 
citizens feel. The state does not wish a relinquishment of 
constitutional power by the Legislature of the Union, but 
she hopes that that high body, in return, does not wish an 
operation of its laws where constitutionality may be ques- 
tioned, to the injury of the rights of Georgia. " The grievances 

"Public Lands, vol. 1, p. 79. 6U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 1, p. 549. cib.,vol. 2, p. 69. 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 3 



34 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

of the State regarding its western territor}- were then set 
forth, its willingness to negotiate for amicable settlement was 
stated, and the hope was expressed that the whole disgraceful 
matter of the Yazoo sale might be concluded 1)}" a cession of 
the territory to the United States on acceptable terms and 
with reasonable boundaries. In conclusion: '"With the most 
profound respect for the legislature of the United States, the 
legislature of Georgia assure them of their inviolable attach- 
ment to the constitution of their countr}^ and their inalienable 
fidelity to the United American Nation.''''^' 

The striking character of the change in the attitude of the 
Georgia government and people will be more full}' shown in 
the chapter on Creek affairs. Its occurrence was due in part 
to a more sympathetic understanding with the Federal authori- 
ties and in part to the satisfactory conditions then existing in 
Indian afi'airs, while additional factors in bringing about the 
new frame of mind were a feeling of shame over the Yazoo 
corruption and a fear that hostilities would soon arise with 
the Spanish in Florida. 

The remonstrance of Georgia was received by Congress in 
due time. The committee of the House to which it was 
referred reported on February 28, 1801, that since negotia- 
tions were well under way for the cession of the district in 
question, no action need be taken.* 

The cession was finally made and ratified on April 24, 1802. 
The western boundary of the State was fixed in the terms of 
the agreement as it has remained to the present day. All 
lands which Georgia had claimed beyond that boundary she 
ceded to the United States. She stipulated that $1,260,000 
should be paid her out of the proceeds of the sales of the 
lands, since that was approximately the amount which she had 
expended in connection with them. The lands were to be used 
for the common benefit of the States, with the exception of 
5,000,000 acres, which might be devoted to the settlement of 
the Yazoo claims. A State was to be erected in the ceded 
territor}^ and domestic slavery was to be permitted therein.'' 

a This "Address and remonstrance of the legislature of Georgia," approved December 6, 
1800, was printed by the United States in pamphlet form in ISOl. A eopy of it may be 
found in the Congressional Library and another in the library of Yale University. The 
document vi'as reprinted in the Augusta Constitutionalist July 28, 1835. 

b Public Lands, vol. 1, p. 112. 

c lb., vol. 1, p. 125. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 35 

For our view the fourth provision in the first article of the 
agfreement should be kept clearly in mind. It stated that the 
United States were bound to extinguish, '*at their own ex- 
pense, for the use of Georgia, as soon as the same can be 
peaceably obtained on reasonable terms, the Indian title to the 
country of Tallassee" and other specified districts, "and that 
the United States shall in the same manner also extinguish 
the Indian title to all other lands within the State of Georgia." 
The second article, which was also important in later 3'ears, 
set forth that the United States "cede to the State of Georgia 
whatever claim, right, or title they may have to the jurisdic- 
tion or soil of any lands lying [within the limits of Georgia]." 

The chief immediate effect of the cession of 1802 was to 
place within the sphere of the Federal authorities the whole 
problem of quieting the Yazoo claims. The solution of that 
problem proved difficult and tedious, on account of the differ- 
ing opinions held by the three departments of the Govern- 
ment. The owners of claims to the Yazoo lands petitioned 
Congress again and again for the enforcement of their rights, 
or at least for an equitable compromise; but nearly a decade 
passed without any su))stantial progress toward a settlement. 
President Jefferson thought that the claims were not valid, 
but that it would be good policy to arrange a compromise in 
order to avoid troublesome litigation in equity. Man}" of the 
claimants were third parties, who had bought the lands from 
the Yazoo companies; there was no accusation of bad faith 
against them, and it w^as not clear that they deserved to be 
left without indemnity for their losses. As regards Congress, 
the complexion of the lower House is noteworthy. The Dem- 
ocrats had a clear majority, and the Southern wing of the 
party controlled the policy of the whole. John Randolph, 
vigorously supported by Troup, of Georgia, and other South- 
erners, took the ground that any interference by the central 
Government in the matter would constitute an infraction 
of the rights of the State of Georgia. By this line of argu- 
ment and by copious vilification of the bribe-giving Yazoo 
speculators Randolph caused Congress to defer action year by 
year from 1804 to 1814.^' 

The judiciary remained as the onh^ branch of the Govern- 
ment from which the claimants might obtain assistance. The 

aCf. Henry Adams, Hist, of the U. S., vol. 2, p. 212. 



36 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

nationalist attitude of Chief Justice Marshall was well known, 
and his action could be foretold regarding the claims, if any 
litigation should bring them within his province. The hold- 
ers of the Yazoo scrip at length saw the futility of their 
routine petitions to Congress, and adopted a scheme to obtain 
a declaration of the Supreme Court in favor of the validity 
of their claims. Accordingly they made up the case of 
Fletcher -v. Peck, which was brought before the court in 1809.^' 

The declaration of the plaintiff in the suit was that he, 
Fletcher, had bought of Peck, for $3,(>o0, the title to a tract 
of 15,000 acres of land, lying within the limits of Georgia. 
It stated that Peck had bought this tract of Phelps, who had 
bought it of Prime, who had l)ought it of Greenleaf , who had 
acquired it from the Georgia Company, to which the Georgia 
legislature had sold the land in 1795. It pleaded that this 
title which the plaintiff had acquired had been rendered 
faulty by the rescinding act of 1796, and that therefore he 
was entitled to reimbursement in the sum of $3,000. 

The decision of the court was rendered by Chief Justice 
Marshall on February 16, 1810. It was to the effect that 
Peck's title to the land was valid, and that therefore Fletcher 
had no adequate ground for demanding reimbursement. 
Answering the arguments of the plaintiff's attorney, the court 
decided that the constitution of Georgia of 1789 established 
no restriction upon the legislature which inhibited the pas- 
sage of the act of 1795, and that that act was of force. The 
court dealt with the validity of the rescinding act as a general 
question, having no special application to Georgia. It held 
that when a law is in its nature a contract, and when absolute 
rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law 
can not divest those rights. It furthei- observed that the 
Constitution of the United States especially forlnds the States 
to make laws which impair the obligation of contracts. ""The 
validity of the rescinding act, then, might well be doubted, 
were Georgia a simple sovereign power. But Georgia can not 
be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on 
whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may 
be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large 
empire; she is a member of the American Union; and that 

a W. Cranch, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 6, p. 87. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 37 

union has a constitution, tlie supremacy of which all acknowl- 
edge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the 
several States which none can claim a right to pass." 

Justice Johnson rendered a separate decision upon two 
points involved, and in it he displayed a view of the actual 
relations lietween the Central Government, the State govern- 
ments, and the Indian tribes, which, if it had been pronounced 
fifteen years before or after its actual date, would have led to 
vigorous replies from Georgia. He held that the Indian 
tribes to the west of Georgia possessed the general attributes 
of nations and retained the absolute proprietorship of their 
soil; that all the restrictions which Georgia had upon the 
right of soil in the Indians amounted only to an exclusion of 
other competitors from the purchase of their lands. He con- 
cluded, "And if this [right of Georgia to acquire the lands] was 
even more than a mere possibility, it certainly was reduced 
to that state when the State of Georgia ceded to the United 
States, by the constitution, both the power of preemption 
and of conquest, retaining for itself only a resulting right 
dependent on a purchase or a conquest to be made by the 
United States." 

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, Randolph's 
majority in the House of Representatives diminished until, 
in 1814, a Senate bill was concurred in which provided for 
a compromise with the Yazoo claimants by appropriating 
$5,000,000 from the Treasury. 

The State rights adherents throughout the South were irri- 
tated and chagrined ])y the decision of the Supreme Court 
and by the final act of Congress. But it was a relief to 
everyone to be rid of the hated Yazoo business, which for 
twenty years had been so troublesome. In the view of the 
Georgia populace the corruption of the State government of 
1795 was of more consequence than the later question of juris- 
diction. A vote of thanks which the legislature gave to 
Randolph in 1807 was awarded to the champion of Georgia's 
honor rather than of her sovereign rights. The people felt, 
indeed, that the Central Government had meddled where of 
right it had no jurisdiction; but as early as 1802 the State 
had shown that it was not absolutely opposed to the idea of a 
compromise, by agreeing to the possible use of a portion of 
the ceded lands for that very purpose. 



38 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

At the period in which the decision was rendered in the 
case of Fletcher v. Peck the popuUir interest in internal ques- 
tions of all kinds was largel^y replaced by engrossing attention 
to foreign affairs. The South was eager for strong measures 
to be taken by the United States to resent the indignities 
offered by England and France. But New England was 
resolved to foster peace and commerce and was inclined to go 
as far as the dissolution of the Union if its end could })e 
achieved in no other way. This state of affairs caused a 
reaction from the particularist doctrines in the South and it 
led to the adoption of the principles of the so-called Federal- 
ist party by the whole body of the Democrats. 

Georgia was eager to engage in the war of 1812, and her 
leaders condemned the lack of patriotism in all those who, liv- 
ing in other sections, held opposing views. 

We have reached, then, a period coinciding roughly with 
the first two decades of the nineteenth century, where a dis- 
tinct lull occurred in Geoi'gia's contentions for the recogni- 
tion of her sovereign rights. 



CHAPTER II. --THE ACQUISITION OF THE CREEK LANDS. 



In the period from 1764 to 1802, during which the Missis- 
sippi River was the legal western boundary of Georgia, her 
territory embraced the homes and hunting grounds of large 
portions of the four main tribes of Southern Indians. Of 
these the Chickasaws and Choctaws dwelt so far away to the 
west as never to come into contact with any settlements which 
acknowledged the jurisdiction of Georgia. The southern 
limit of the Cherokee lands was 200 miles distant from the 
original plantation at Savannah, and that tribe also was for a 
long time exempt from any great encroachment by Georgians. 
The Creek Indians were the aboriginal proprietors of the 
whole southeastern district, and as such were alone concerned 
in the early cessions of land to Georgia. The Creek tribe 
or nation, exclusive of the Seminoles, with whom we are not 
concerned, was a loose confederation of villages, in two main 
divisions, called lower and upper, or eastern and western. 
The homes of the Lower Creeks were chiefly within the present 
limits of Georgia, while the villages of the Upper Creeks were 
grouped near the Alabama River and its tributaries. 

The colony of Georgia had found little difficulty in securing 
enough land from the Creeks to satisfy the reasonable wants 
of the settlers. By means of three treaties, dated, respectively, 
1733, 1763, and 1773, the tribe had ceded its title to such dis- 
tricts as were considered most desirable by the immigrants. 
The result was that at the time of the Revolution, the com- 
monwealth was in possession of a ver}^ long and narrow strip 
of land bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the Savannah River. 
This district probably embraced an eighth of the territory 
now owned by Georgia, or a twentieth of that within her 
chartered limits in that period. 

During the war with Great Britain, both the Creeks and 
the Cherokees were guilty of numerous depredations. The 

39 



40 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Cherokees were punished by a raiding party at the beginning 
of 1783, and were forced to make a treaty ceding their claims 
to certain lands about the sources of the Oconee River, Since 
this region had been held i^i joint possession by the Chero- 
kees and the Creeks, Georgia needed to extinguish the Creek 
claim in order to perfect her title. A delegation of Creek 
chiefs made a treaty with the State authorities at Augusta in 
1783, ceding the claim of their tribe to the lands demanded/' 
It soon afterwards appeared that a part of the Creeks were 
dissatisfied with the treaty and claimed that it was invalid; 
but the malcontents did not proceed to violence, and the new 
lands were occupied in peace by the incoming settlers. 

The two treaties of 1783 were made and ratified by the State 
of Georgia without any participation by the Central Govern- 
ment of the Confederation, but in 1785 the Congress sent 
commissioners to the two southeastern tribes, with instruc- 
tions to make definitive peace and to obtain further cessions 
of land, if practicable. CJommissioners were also appointed 
by Georgia to attend the negotiations as representatives of the 
State. They were instructed to protest against any measures 
of the United States commissioners which should seem to 
exceed the powers given by the Articles of Confederation, 
and to report upon these matters to the State legislature. The 
Creeks were invited to a conference at Galphinton, in 
Georgia, but onh^ a small delegation appeared at the appointed 
time. The representatives of the Congress declined to nego- 
tiate under such circumstances, and left Galphinton in order 
to keep an engagement with the Cherokees at Hopewell, in 
South Carolina. The Georgians, however, made a treaty 
with the chiefs on the spot, ootaining from them a cession, in 
the name of the whole Creek nation, of what was called the 
Tallassee country, comprising the district south and south- 
west of the Altamaha River.* The United States commis- 
sioners afterwards made a treaty with the Cherokees at Hope- 
well, which was of little benefit to Georgia. The Georgia 
commissioners reported to the legislature that the instructions 
which had been issued by tlie Congress for the negotiations 
involved an infringement upon the rights of the State. The 
State government, after ratifying the treaty of Galphinton 

a Indian Aflfnirs, vol. 1, p. 23. Pickett, Hist, of Ala., vol. 2, p. 69. 
''lb., vol. 1, p. 17. 



Historical Report, 1901.-- Phillips. 



Plate I 




INDIAN CESSIONS IN GEORGIA. 



£N & CO LITH.N - 



GEOEGIA AND STATE BIGHTS. 41 

and thanking its commissioners for their vigilance and 
patriotism, addressed to the Congress a memorial against the, 
attempted infringement of State rights/' In the same spirit 
as at Galphinton, negotiations were held in October, 1786, at 
Shoulderbone Creek, between Georgia commissioners and a 
small delegation of Creek chiefs, who assumed authority to 
act for the whole nation. A treaty was made which extin- 
guished the Creek title to all lands east of the Oconee River, '^ 

A large number of Creeks showed hostility to the treaties 
which Georgia had recently made, and prepared to contest 
their validity. Alexander McGillivray, a half-breed chief of 
decided political ability and of great ambition, was the mov- 
ing spirit of this unfriendly party, which plainly comprised a 
majority of all the Creeks. In the treaties of Augusta, Gal- 
phinton, and Shoulderbone, McGillivray saw the development 
on the part of Georgia of a firm policy to which he was re- 
solved not to yield in any degree. He remonstrated with the 
Central Government, and at the same time directed his war- 
riors to harass the Georgia frontier in order to compel speed}^ 
attention to his protest. After making a perfunctory inves- 
tigation the Congress decided that the treaties of Galphinton 
and Shoulderbone had been made unlawfully, and that the 
cessions of land were invalid. 

The ensuing condition of affairs was very disagreeable for 
all parties involved. The majority of the Creeks felt out- 
raged by the scheming between Georgia and the treat v faction 
of their own tribe, and they probably made the minority feel 
the weight of their displeasure. The people of Georgia real- 
ized that the failure of the Congress to support the official 
and almost necessary policy of the State would afford McGil- 
livray an opportunity to play off one government against the 
other to his own advantage and at the expense of the State.'' 
The predicament of the Congress was no novelty for that 
body, for its powerlessness had become notorious. It prob- 
ably felt that its decision in the case was the correct one, but 
it had no power to make Georgia abide by that decision. On 

« For substance of instructions to the United States commissioners, stating that Con- 
gress was sovereign over all the country, and that Congress wanted none of the Indian 
lands, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 41. For resolution of the Georgia legislature, thank- 
ing the Georgia commissioners, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 17. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 67. 

b Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 18 to 23. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 71. 

(-•Report of committee, Georgia House of Representatives, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 24. 



42 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the other hand, the Confederation was so feeble that in case a 
war should arise with the Creeks a national force could hardily 
be put into the field. 

Congress was strongly inclined to keep the peace at any 
cost, but neither Georgia nor the Creeks were so aniicabl}' 
disposed. Desultory hostilities increased, and continued for 
several years. Several attempts at conciliation were made, 
but neither of the parties would yield upon any point. 

The establishment of the new system of government in 1789 
placed the United States authorities in a much better position 
to cope with the Indian troubles of the country; but imme- 
diate solution was not found for all the problems. President 
Washington was inclined to approve Georgia's contention in 
Creek affairs. He decided, however, to send a confidential 
agent to McGillivray with an invitation for the Creek chiefs 
to a conference at New York. The Creeks accepted, and at 
New York a treaty was made, August 7, 1790, without any 
consultation with the government of Georgia.'* The Indians, 
for a monetary consideration, agreed to validate the treaty of 
Shoulderbone, which ceded the lands east of the Oconee. 
On the other hand they refused to recognize the treaty of 
Galphinton in any degree, but inserted an article in the new 
treaty reserving the Tallassee country to the Creek Nation. 

A novel and striking feature of the new treaty was embod- 
ied in the fifth article, which reads: "The United States sol- 
emnly guarantees to the Creek Nation all lands within the 
limits of the United States to the westward and southward of 
the boundary described in the preceding article." The Geor- 
gians at once attacked this article as an unwarrantable stretch 
of the Federal power. James Jackson declared in Congress 
that the treaty was spreading alarm among the people of 
Georgia, and complained that it had ceded away a great re- 
gion which was guaranteed to the State by the Federal Con- 
stitution.^ The State legislature adopted a remonstrance to 
Congress declaring the fifth article of the treaty to be liable 
to censure because of the objectionable and innovating phrase 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 81. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 122. The text of this and all other 
treaties of ths United States Government with the various tribes of Indians, between 1789 
and 1825, may be found in a vohune entitled "Indian Treaties," published by authority 
of th2 Department of War, 182.5. The treaties ratifu'd after 1789 may also ))e found in the 
United States Statutes at Larg-e. 

bCl. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S., vol. 1, p. 001. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 43 

which it contained. The fear \\ a« expressed that the giving 
of a guarant}^ for their lands to the Creeks by the Central 
Government would lead to the conclusion that the sovereignty 
over such lands belonged to the United States; whereas, the 
legislature asserted, the said sovereignty appertained solely 
to the State of Georgia and had never been granted to the 
Union b}^ any compact whatsoever." 

The discord over these unoccupied lands was due to oppos- 
ing conceptions of the status of the Indian tribes. The 
theory of the colonial governments had been that these tribes 
were independent communities with the rights and powers of 
sovereign nations. During the Revolution and in the period 
of the Confederation the central government adhered to that 
theory. But public opinion, following the arguments of the 
State governments which were involved in Indian problems, 
reverted to the original European conception that the rela- 
tions of the tribes to civilized nations were merely those 
of dependent communities without sovereignty and without 
any right to the soil but that of tenants at will. The reor- 
ganization of the Government in 1789 brought no change of 
Indian policy so far as concerned the central authorities. On 
the other hand, the State governments were growing more 
positive in their own views. Georgia was in the forefront 
of this development, but as in the case of the eleventh amend- 
ment, her doctrines were quickly accepted by States whose 
attention was being forcibly directed to the question by similar 
predicaments of their own.^ 

The contiict in policy was felt to be very unfortunate. The 
treaty of New York w\as regretted by Georgians because it 
tended to emphasize the lack of harmony and to show the 
Creeks that in a possible war with Georgia they would not 
have to fear the arms of the Union.'' The frontier settlers 
did not stop with coldly disapproving the treaty. They hotly 
declared that they would permit no line to be marked out as 
a permanent boundarj^ between Georgia and the Creek lands 
denied to her. Fuither trouble was made by a party of the 
Creeks dominated by Spanish influence. Frontier depreda- 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 791. 

''Robert Weil, The Legal Status of the Indian, p. 17. Cf. charge of Judge Walton to a 
Georgia grand jury, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 409. Cf. message of Governor Milledge, April 
18, 1803, in MSS. journal of the .senate of Georgia, 1803, p. 4. 

c Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 24; report of committee, Georgia house of representatives. 



44 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

tions began again and continued spasmodically for several 
years. The Georgians became highly incensed at the Indian 
outrages, the more so because of the impossibility of deciding 
where retaliation for the maraudings should be made. A 
large number of the Creeks were known to be peaceable and 
friendl\% but exact knowledge of the attitude of each village 
could not be had." 

A period of comparative quiet at the beginning of 1793 was 
rudely disturbed in March by the raid of a party of Creeks 
upon Glynn and Camden counties on the extreme southern 
frontier of Georgia. The whole State was thrown into 
excitement. The disorderly Creeks along the whole border 
took the marauding fever to such an extent that Governor 
Telfair proposed to build a line of blockhouses reaching 
from North Carolina to Florida.* On May 8, the governor 
wrote to the President that the savages were making such 
havoc that retaliation by open war was the only resort. 
At the middle of June General Twiggs was dispatched 
with about TOO militia to invade the Creek country. He 
advanced as far as the Ocmulgee River, but there turned back 
because of the lack of supplies. During July and August the 
State authorities continued active preparation for warfare. 
Councils of war were held, and their recommendations for 
an offensive campaign w^ere sent to the President for his 
approval. But Washington was strongly opposed to a Creek 
war. He replied that he utterly disapproved the plans, 
because the right of declaring war belonged to Congress 
alone, because a great portion of the Creeks were clearlv 
desirous of peace, and because of considerations regarding 
Spain, and regarding the Cherokees.' 

It soon became apparent that the great majority of the 
Creeks were very much troubled that the hostility had arisen. 
Their alarm at the threatening preparations of Georgia 
caused them to give information that the marauders belonged 
to a few specified towns on the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers, 
and to intimate the willingness of the tribe as a whole to make 
reparation for damages.'' The overtures of the Creeks re- 

rt Pickett, vol. 2, p. 122. Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 258, 327, 369, 392, and 409. Stevens, 
vol. 2, p. 445. 
J* Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 368. 
<• lb., pp. 365, 369, and 370. 
d lb. , pp. 327, 383, and 386. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 45 

moved all cause for war, much to the disappointment of Gov- 
ernor Telfair, who wanted a few battles which would tend to 
vindicate Georgia's policy and advance her contentions for the 
validity of the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulderbone. The 
sentiment for the rights and dignity of the State was at this 
time so radical that the governor was prompted to inform the 
Central Government on September 26, 1793, of certain "con- 
ditions that will be required on the part of the State of 
Georgia on the establishment of peace between the United 
States and the Creek Indians,""'" 

The death of Alexander McGillivray, in February, 1793, 
left the Creeks so disorganized that very delicate handling 
was required before any treaty could be negotiated and rati- 
fied b}'^ what the United States Government considered the 
sovereign Creek Nation. James Seagrove took up residence 
in the midst of the tribe, as United States Indian agent, in 
the effort to restore tranquillity. His work encountered the 
opposition of the lawless element of the Creeks and of the 
self-sufficient, unruly whites on the frontier. In April, 1794, 
he was able to bring a delegation of the chiefs on a friendly 
visit to the governor of Georgia. All parties expressed 
themselves as anxious for peace, and the delegation went 
home well satisfied.'^ The work of conciliation was having 
effect among the Georgians as well as with the Indians. In 
August, Governor Matthews wrote the Creeks that the State 
wanted no more of their lands if they w^ould desist from 
depredations.'' The good faith of this statement may be ques- 
tioned; but it is clear that Matthews was less aggressive than 
his predecessor in office, and that the general temper of the 
State was more moderate. 

In December the Georgia legislature requested the Central 
Government to make arrangements for making a treaty with 
the object of extinguishing the Creek claim to the lands be- 
tween the Oconee and the Ocmulgee. On June 25, 1795, 
Washington appointed three commissioners for the purpose. 
The negotiations were held at Coleraine, in southern Georgia, 
in June, 1796. When it was found that the Creeks would cede 
no lands, a treaty was made which ratified the treaty of New 
York and established peace /^ 

alndian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 412. ft lb., p. 472. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 154. 

clb., vol, 1. p. 497. (ilb., pp. 486 and 560. 



46 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Commissioners from Georgia were present during the 
negotiations at Coleraine, but they felt that their importance 
was not fully recognized, The}^ drew up a protest against 
the proceedings of the United States commissioners and 
against the treaty as made.^ A large part of the document 
consists of complaint about slights to the dignity of the 
Georgia conmiissioners. Onh^ two points in the protest are 
worthy of note. The fifth article remonstrated against the 
cession >)y the (^reeks to the United States of land in Georgia 
for the purpose of posts and trading houses without the con- 
sent of the State government. This point met the approval 
of the United States Senate, and the objectionable clause was 
stricken from the treaty. The sixth article repeated the com- 
plaint of Georgia against the power of the Central Govern- 
ment to repudiate the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulderbone 
and foretold disastrous consequences if such a policy should 
be continued. In accordance with this part of the protest a 
committee of the lower House of Congress reported that it 
failed to find reason for the relinquishment to the Creeks of 
the land obtained ])y Georgia through the treaty of Galphin- 
ton unless from general policy toward keeping the peace. It 
recommended that the United States make compensation to 
Georgia for the injury." Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina 
was chairman of the committee, and Georgia realized that her 
claims found enough support in Congress to make any strong- 
resolutions unnecessary on her part. The protest of the 
Georgia commissioners failed to rouse any great turmoil, for 
a more S3nn]jathetic understanding now prevailed. The Cen- 
tral Government was not inclined to support the unwarranted 
action of its commissioners, and, on the other hand, the people 
of Georgia probably thought that the representatives of the 
State, from the influence of personal pique, had overstated 
their case. 

Throughout the remaining years of the century there was 
peace on the Creek frontier. Indeed, the hatchet was not 
again dug up until the time of the second war between the 
United States and Great Britain. 

The general atmosphere of the ('reek Ijorder at the end of 
the century is well indicated by an incident which occurred in 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 613. Stevens, vol. 2, p. 456. 
bib., vol. 2, p. 770. 



GEORGIA AKD STATE RIGHTS, 47 

1794, with Elijah Clarke" as its central figure. Clarke was a 
rough and fearless son of the backwoods, who sometimes with 
the best of intentions, thought that his own will should be the 
law of the land. When he saw the cabins of the settlers being- 
built within sight of each other and contemplated the ever- 
swelling tide of immigration from Virginia and the Carolinas, 
he felt that the population of Georgia was about to become 
too dense. With an unconscious application of the doctrine 
of beneficent use, he decided that 20,000 Creeks could not 
actually need forty or fifty million acres of good tobacco and 
corn lands. His actions were governed accordingly. He had 
defeated the Indians as a general in the Continental Army, 
and had a contempt for their power in battle. As for inter- 
ference from any other source, he expected Georgia to sup- 
port his undertaking, and thought that a bold front would 
prevent trouble with the Federal authorities. 

A number of home seekers fell in with the scheme of Clarke 
to take possession without ceremony of some of the luiceded 
Creek lands. These men were not necessarily of desperate 
character. The clause in the treaty of New York, 1790, 
which guaranteed the title of the Creeks to all their lands not 
then ceded, justified the conduct of Clarke and his followers 
in the minds of many people in middle Georgia. Clarke 
launched his enterprise by establishing' his band of pioneers 
on lands west of the Oconee and within the district guaranteed 
to the Indians. He built two little forts for protection, and 
began clearing the ground for cultivation. 

Governor Matthews heard a rumor of the settlement in 
May, 1794, but did not obtain definite information until July. 
He then sent officers to command Clarke to move ofi' the 
Creek lands. Upon receiving a refusal to obe}^ the governor 
issued a proclamation against the settlement and ordered the 
arrest of the leader. Clarke surrendered himself to the 
authorities of Wilkes County. Four justices of the peace 
sat upon the case, and with unanimous voice and in pompous 
terms declared him discharged from custodv. The governor 
then wrote Washington for advice and assistance, meanwhile 
organizing a troop of horse to place Clarke's settlement in 
state of siege. The Indians had already complained to the 

aElijah Clarke sometimes wrote his name Clark. His sons nearly always used the 
longer form. 



48 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

President. Washington directed Governor Matthews to sup- 
press the settlement with the use of the military, in case such 
force were necessary. Judge Walton, of the Georgia bench, 
made occasion to condemn the settlement and to urge its 
abandonment. But Clarke and his men declared that they 
would maintain their ground at the expense of their lives. 
The governor pushed on his militar}^ preparations. Federal 
and State troops were hurried to the vicinity of the illegal 
settlement, and artillery was ordered to the spot from Savan- 
nah, It soon became evident that armed resistance on the 
part of Clarke would be foolhardy. At the end of September 
he evacuated his forts with the honors of war, and thus closed 
the episode. * 

While many of the frontiersmen were disposed to ignore 
the forms of the law, especially where the inferior race was 
concerned, the State as a whole was inclined to emphasize the 
observance of legal and constitutional restrictions by its own 
citizens as well as by the United States Government. The 
incidents of the Yazoo sale demonstrated that the two gov- 
ernments were not entirely in accord upon all points; but at 
the beginning of the new century there was no single dis- 
pute between them which was not smoothly approaching a 
settlement. 

The ratification of the articles of agreement and cession 
between Georgia and the United States, in 1802, gave very 
general satisfaction in the State. The government of Georgia 
was glad to extricate itself from the predicament in which 
the Yazoo sale had placed it. The lands ceded to the United 
States were remote from the settled districts, and of little 
practical value to the State at that time; while as a considera- 
tion for them the Central Government agreed to pay a sum 
of money, yielded all claim to land or jui'isdiction within 
Georgia's limits east of the Chattahoochee line, and promised 
to remove the Indians from the territory of the State as soon 
it should become practicable. 

Very soon after the signing of the agreement, commission- 
ers of the United States entered upon successful negotiations 
for a Creek cession. The Indians, by the treaty of Fort Wil- 
kinson, agreed to yield their title to a part of the Tallassee 
country, lying south of the Altamaha, and to a part of the dis- 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 495, fl. Stevens, vol. 2, p. 404. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 156. G. R. 
Gilmer, Georgians, pp. 190 to 194. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 49 

trict between the Oconee and the Ocomulgee. The Georgians 
had hoped to obtain greater cessions, but were contented for 
the time being witli what was obtained for them. Some of the - 
Western Creeks were disposed to make trouble over the en- 
croachment upon the lands of their nation, but the very effi- 
cient Indian agent, Col. Benjamin Hawkins, proved equal to 
the occasion and pacified the malcontents. 

The Georgia authorities were not disposed to let the United 
States Government forget the obligation assumed in 1802. 
Negotiations were held at the Creek Agency on the Flint 
River in 1804, in which the Indian title was extinguished 
over the remaining territory east of the Ocmulgee. Another 
treaty was made with the Creek chiefs at Washington, 
D. C, in 1805, but no further lands could then be secured 
for Georgia. '^^ During the next decade the tremendous wars 
in Europe attracted attention everywhere at the expense of 
other matters. The probability that America w^ould be in- 
volved, and the fact that Georgia was a frontier State, added 
to the consideration that there was no pressing need for more 
land, led to the avoidance of any policy tending to arouse the 
hostility of the Indians or the Spaniards in Florida. The 
Creeks were thus granted a respite from the theretofore 
incessant demands for territory. 

Toward 1812 relations became strained between the United 
States and England. Anticipating the outbreak of war, British 
emissaries began the work of securing allies among the Amer- 
ican Indians. The great chief Tecumseh readily fell in with 
the plans of the British and undertook to incite all the tribes 
between Canada and Florida to attack the frontier settlements. 
The Upper or W^estern Creeks were already ill disposed toward 
the whites, and their A^oung warriors listened eagerly to the 
speeches of Tecumseh at Atauga and Coosada, on the Ala- 
bama River, in October, 1812. The older and more experi- 
enced chiefs shook their heads at the incendiary talking, but 
the bulk of the Western tribes put aside their advice as that 
of timid dotards. 

The Creeks, like the Cherokees, were at this time in a 
transitional stage from savagery to semi-civilization. Their 
habits and disposition had formerly been those of huntsmen 
and warriors; but in imitation of their white neighbors, and 

"For the three treaties, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 669, 691, and 696. 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 4 



50 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

largely through the instruction of the United States Indian 
agents, they had begun to raise cattle and to cultivate the 
ground more extensively. The younger element, however, 
sighed for the barbaric life of their forefathers and resented 
the advance of the white settlements. As a rule the Eastern 
Creeks were decidedly peaceable, but among the tribes on the 
Alabama all the young men were anxious for battle. Their 
warlike spirit was iiredthe more by the urging of their proph- 
ets and medicine men, who foretold victory over the Amer- 
icans, and long life in happy hunting grounds for the braves 
who fell in battle. A wide conspiracy was organized among 
the Western Creeks in the winter and spring of 1812-13, with- 
out the knowledge of the Americans or of the friendly 
Indians. 

The older chiefs of the Upper Creeks tinally discovered the 
trouble brewing, and in April, 1813, protested their goodwill 
to the United States in letters to Colonel Hawkins. Alexan- 
der Cornells, one of the older chiefs and sub-agent of the 
United States for the Upper Creeks, learned the details of the 
plot. He saw that the prophets of the Alabamas, who were 
enemies of the plan of civilization and advocates of the wild 
Indian mode of living, were the chief assistants of Tecumseh 
in preparing the outbreak which was just beginning. Cor- 
nells at once informed Hawkins of his discoveries and hurried 
in person to Milledgeville to get aid from the governor of 
Georgia. But neither Colonel Hawkins nor Governor Mitch- 
ell could be certain that the trouble among the Upper Creeks 
was anything more serious than a contest for power betwen 
rival groups of chiefs." 

Murders and depredations had already begun on the Ten- 
nessee frontier, which was nearer the Upper Creek villages 
than were the Georgia settlements. The hostile spirit was 
also encountered by the little colony of Americans near Mo- 
bile and by the settlers in Mississip])i. The first skirmish 
was at Burnt Corn, in Southern Alal)anui, where the Creeks 
repulsed an attack of badly organized frontiersmen. On July 
30 an outrage was perpetrated which aroused all the Southern 
people to the serious character of the uprising. This was the 
capture of Fort Minis, on the lower course of the Alabama 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 813, 846, 848, and 898. 



GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 51 

River, and the massacre of almost every man, woman, and 
child who had fled within its stockade for refuge. 

Large numbers of Americans were at once put in readiness 
to invade the Alabama country. Gen. Andrew Jackson quickly 
organized a little army of Tennesseeans and crossed the bound- 
ar}^ in October. He attacked and defeated the Creeks wher- 
ever he could find them, but the want of food and supplies 
hampered him and prevented a rapid campaign. Raids into 
the Creek country were made b}^ General Cocke with an army 
from East Tennessee; by General Floyd with Georgia militia, 
and by General Claiborne with a force of Mississippians and 
Choctaws. Each of these achieved a victory, but from lack 
of supplies was compelled to make a hasty retreat to his 
respective basis of operations. At the beginning of 1814 both 
Jackson and Floyd met with reverses, due as much to the 
wildness of the country as to the bravery of the Indians. But 
in March Jackson advanced with strong reinforcements and 
won a decisive victory at the Horseshoe on the Tallapoosa 
River. All of the surviving hostile Creeks fled across the 
Florida boundary,'* In August Jackson assembled at Fort 
Jackson the chiefs who remained in Alabama and dictated 
terms of peace to the Creek Nation. 

This done, he threw diplomatic considerations to the winds 
and advanced with his army into Florida, then a colony of 
the neutral power, Spain. He expelled the British from 
Pensacola and drove the Creeks and Seminoles into the dense 
swamps; but his conduct in foreign territory had almost led 
to censure from the President, when he transferred his forces 
to New Orleans and won such a signal victory there that his 
l)opularity with the people led the Cabinet to drop its consid- 
eration of his former conduct. There were some further 
slight hostilities with the Creeks and Seminoles in 1815, but 
the final pacification in October simply established more 
firmly the treaty of Fort Jackson of August 9, 1814. 

By this treaty or capitulation of Fort Jackson the Creeks 
were forced to give up a great quantity of land. The terri- 
tory ceded lay in what is now central and southern Alabama 
and in southern Georgia. Jackson's object in requiring the 
particular cession that he demanded was a strategic one. He 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 813. Pickett, vol. 2, pp. 271 et sq. Henry Adams, Hist. IJ. 8., 
vol. 7. 



52 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

wished to isolate the Creeks as far as he could from other 
possible enemies of the United States. The cession of lands 
in the valle}^ of the Ala))ania led to a strong settlement of 
whites between the Creeks on the east and the Chickasaws 
and Choctaws on the west, while the securing of a broad belt 
in southern Georgia cut off the Spaniards and Seminoles 
from all mischievous communication." 

At the time of holding the treaty Colonel Hawkins repre- 
sented to (xeneral Jackson that Georgia was anxious to secure 
possession of her Creek lands as far as the Flint River: but 
in addition to the ai-gument of strategic advisability the fact 
was clear that while the Western Creeks had been warring 
upon the United States the Eastern half of the nation had 
remained friendly, thus it would hardly be fair to require the 
Eastern Creeks to give up an unnecessary amount of theii' 
lands as punishment for what the Western Creeks had done. 

The Georgia legislature in December addressed a remon- 
strance to the President of the United States regarding the 
treaty of Fort Jackson. The citizens of Georgia, it said, liad 
hoped that the United States would have taken advantage 
of the victory over the Creeks to carry out the agreement 
made with Georgia in 1802. But as a matter of fact, Georgia 
had obtained little or no benefit from the treaty. The terri- 
tory acquired, it stated, was sterile and unprofitable. All the 
territory left to the Creeks lay in Georgia or very near its 
western boundarv. The protest concludi d with a request that 
further cessions be soon obtained. 

Negotiations were set on foot to accomplish the wish of the 
Georgians, the result of which was a cession at the Creek 
Agency, January 22, 1818, of 1,500,000 acres of land in two 
parcels, the one lying about the headwaters of the Ocmulgee 
River, and the other consisting of a tongue of land lying 
between the Altamaha River and the northern boundary of 
the cession of 1814. This second district, which was the 
larger of the two, was not held in high esteem for agricul- 
tural purposes, and therefore the treaty of 1818 did not secure 
for the Creeks a long intermission from the importunities of 
Georgia. 

President Monroe in a message to Congress, March 17, 1820, 



a Pickett, vol. 2, p. 826. Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 838. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 58 

requested appropriations to extinguish by treaty the Indian 
title to all remaining lands in Georgia. As a result of this a 
treaty was made at Indian Spring, January 18, 1821, by which 
Georgia obtained from the Creeks their remaining lands east 
of the Flint Kiver. Governor Clarke convened the legislature 
to distribute the ceded lands, and sent in a message which was 
characteristic of the attitude of Georgia. He stated that the 
Federal authorities showed themselves ready to abide by the 
agreement of 1802 whenever favorable opportunities arose, 
and he advised that the State government should seize the 
occasion to insist upon a cession from the Cherokees/' The 
assembly was, as usual, not unresponsive to such advice. 

During its session in the following 3^ear the legislature 
addressed to the Central Government another remonstrance, 
dealing to some extent with the theoretical issue. "It has 
been the unfortunate lot of our State to be embroiled in the 
question of territorial right almost from the commencement 
of her existence," the protest ran. ""The State of Georgia 
claims a right to the jurisdiction and soil of the territor}' 
within her limits. She admits, however, that the right is 
inchoate, remaining to be perfected by the United States in 
the extinction of the Indian title, the United States * * * 
acting as our agents."* 

The Indian tribes were indisposed for further cessions; the 
Federal Administration declined to coerce the tribes; the State 
government grew more radical in its demands. George M. 
Troup succeeded John Clarke as governor, and introduced a 
new regime in Indian policy. He sent to the assembly in 
December, 1823, a message couched in no doubtful wording. 
He urged that the legislature should demand of the United 
States Government li])eral appropriations and the proper steps 
for extinguishing the Indian title to all lands in Georgia. He 
said that the Central Government had been niggardly in its 
actions; that the state of things had been growing worse and 
worse. He referred to the occasion in 1814 when the United 
States required the Creeks to cede a large amount of land in 
the Alabama valley, but only a worthless district in Georgia. 
He emphasized, as a special grievance, that in 1814 the United 



oNiles's Register, vol. 20, p. 181. 

b Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 631. U. S. Executive Papers, No. 57, 17th Cong., 
2d sess., vol. 4. 



54 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

States had guaranteed to the ('reeks all the lands not ceded by 
them at Fort Jackson.*^ 

On December 15 a committee of the State senate made a 
report in consonance with the governor's message, and in lan- 
guage as strong as the governor had used. This was quickly 
adopted in the senate with a unanimous vote, in the house 
without a division, and received the governor's signature on 
December 20. The memorial thus prepared, and presented 
to Congress April 5, 1824:, had as its burden that Georgia 
hoped to see "her laws and her sovereignty coextensive with 
the limits within which she had consented to confine herself. '''' 

On March 10, 182-1:, the Georgia delegation in Congress 
addressed a remonstrance to the President on the dilatory 
policy then being followed. The answer of Mr. Monroe ap- 
peared on March 30 in a message to Congress. Differing 
from the opinion of the Georgians, he stated that the United 
States Government had steadily been doing its duty in regard 
to the compact with Georgia; that the Creeks and Cherokees 
refused to cede more lands; that the Government was not 
bound to remove the Indians by force; and he intimated that 
Georgia would have to wait for her lands until the Indians 
should change their minds. 

At this time matters had reached a new stage with the 
Creeks. They had been making successive cessions of land 
from 1814, and felt cramped for room. The territory which 
they had yielded, up to this point, was what had been for- 
merly their hunting grounds; but when all the district east 
of the Flint River had })een given up, and when the Georgians 
still demanded more, it became a question of almndoning their 
homes and migrating to a strange country. The nation had 
advanced considerably in the arts of civilization, and could 
att'ord to do without extensive hunting grounds; but when 
the lands as far as the Chattahoochee were demanded, the 
Creeks resolved to stand upon the guarantees of their terri- 
tory in the treaty of Fort Jackson, and firmly refused to sell 
their homes. Meanwhile the Cherokees had reached the same 
conclusion, and went so far as to send a delegation to Wash- 

aW. Harden, Life of G. M. Troup, p. 197. 

b Acts of Georgia General Assembly 1823, p. 218. Harden's Troup, p. 200. Indian .Vfl'airs, 
vol. 2, p. 491. 



QEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 55 

ington to make positive statement that their nation would 
cede no more lands for any consideration." 

In this state of things it seemed that the United States 
authorities must simpl}^ let matters rest until the Indians could 
be induced to sell out. Such would probably have been the 
case had not George M. Troup been governor of Georgia; 
but this fact became an important one as further develop- 
ments took place. Referring to Monroe's message, Troup 
wrote to J. C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, "The abso- 
lute denial of our rights, as we understand them and have long 
understood them, at the moment when we believed that they 
would have been most respected, is a subject of mortification 
and regret." ^' His course of action f I'om that time was toward 
the end of removing that cause of Georgia's mortification. 

President Monroe, without expecting any substantial results, 
appointed as commissioners to treat with the Southern Indians 
James Meriwether and Duncan G. Campbell, two citizens of 
Georgia. These gentlemen proceeded to arrange a confer- 
ence with the Creek chiefs at Broken Arrow December 7, 
182-i:. Their request for a cession of lands was met b}^ a ref- 
erence to the guaranties contained in the treaties of 1790 and 
1814, and a refusal to sell any territory. The commissioners, 
however, discovered that the chiefs of the Lower Creeks were 
in favor of moving beyond the Mississippi, while the Upper 
Creeks were opposed to the idea and were intimidating the 
treaty faction. Meriwether and Campbell at once adjourned 
the meeting to consult the Federal authorities regarding a 
change in their instructions. 

They requested of the President powers to hold a convention 
with the Georgia Creeks alone, representing that the Upper 
Creeks were under the control of Big Warrior and opposed 
to a cession; that the Cherokees, and especially John Ross, 
were urging the Creeks against ceding; that the United States 
Indian agent refused to give them any aid, while the sub- 
agent perfidiously opposed them. Nevertheless, they stated, 
the Lower Creeks were willing to cede their lands, following 
the advice of their great chief, William Mcintosh, who was 
the principal chief of the eastern half of the nation. 



"Niles's Register, vol. 26, pp. 101 and 139. U. S. Senate Doc. No. 63, 18th Cong., 1st sess., 
vol. 4. 
bNiles's Register, vol. 20, p. 276. 



56 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Upon the refusal of the President to grant the powers 
requested, the commissioners made an alternative request for 
power to negotiate a treaty witli Mcintosh for a cession of 
the lands of the Lower Creeks, the cession to be valid upon 
ratification by the whole Creek Nation. Mr. Monroe stated 
his approval of the second plan offered, reprimanded the agent. 
Colonel Crowell, for his inditi'erence, and discharged the sub- 
agent, Walker, for his obstruction of the work of the commis- 
sioners. The Lower Creek chiefs memorialized the President 
on January 25, 1825, that the party opposed to the cession, 
called the "Red Sticks," were plotting for the destruction of 
the friendly chiefs and asked for protection by the United 
States from Big Warrior and his followers. At the same time 
they appointed Mcintosh and seven other Creek chiefs to 
arrange for a cession of the Creek lands in Georgia. 

Meriwether and Campbell assembled the Creeks anew at 
Indian Spring on February 10, 1825. In their report of the 
proceedings it is stated that nearly -100 chiefs and headmen 
were present, with only a few from Alabama, and that these 
latter withdrew after protesting that the partial assembly had 
no power of cession. A proposition was made the Lower 
Creeks to exchange all their lands in Georgia for an equal 
acreage west of the Mississippi, with a bonus of $5,000,000 
from the United States. This was agreed to as the basis of 
the treaty, and on February 12 the instrument was signed by 
practically all the chiefs present. « 

The treaty was at once hurried off to Washington with 
accompanying documents. On the next day Colonel Crowell, 
in a letter to the Secretary of War, gave his version of the nego- 
tiations, endeavoring to prevent the ratification of the treaty. 
He wrote that only eight towns of the fifty-six composing 
the nation were represented at Indian Spring, that the treaty 
was signed by Mcintosh and his party alone, and that only 
two of the signers besides Mcintosh himself were chiefs of 
high grade. The authorities at Washington had already been 
informed by the Georgia representatives that Crowell's oppo- 
sition to a cession by the Creeks was due to his antagonism 
to Governor Troup in State politics. 

The treaty of Indian Spring was approved by the Senate 



ulndian Allairs, vol. 2. pp. 571 to 582. 



GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 57 

and signed by the President on March 5, 1825. Governor 
Troup issued a proclamation on March 21 that the Creeks had 
ceded to the United States all their lands in Georgia, to pass 
into the possession of the State on or before September 1, 
1826, and warned all persons against intruding upon the Indian 
lands for any purpose whatsoever. He soon began negotia- 
tions with Mcintosh, however, to secure the privilege of hav- 
ing the lands surveyed before the date set, in order that they 
might be occupied as early as possible in the winter of 1826. 
Mcintosh wrote on April 12, 1825, that he would consent to 
the survey if the United States Indian agent did not object. 
On April 25 he gave the desired consent on behalf of the 
friendly Creeks without attaching the condition of the agent's 
approval. 

The Red Stick Creeks had for some time been vowing ven- 
geance against Mcintosh and his supporters. A party num- 
bering more than a hundred warriors surrounded his house on 
the night of April 29, 1825, set fire to it, and shot Mcintosh 
to death as soon as he showed himself. By this murder, fol- 
lowed by that of two other chiefs of their party, the whole 
body of the friendly Creeks were thrown into terror and fled 
for their lives to the white settlements." 

The friendly Creeks and the Georgians had for some time 
suspected Crowell and other white men of inciting the Red 
Sticks to violence. Governor Troup informed the United 
States Government of his suspicions and on June 16 appointed 
commissioners on behalf of the State to take evidence regard- 
ing CrowelFs guilt or innocence. Upon the arrival of T. P. 
Andrews as a special agent of the United States, the governor 
demanded CrowelFs suspension from office. Andrews accord- 
ingly suspended Crowell, but a few days later wrote him an 
open letter apologizing for having done so upon false charges. 
Troup wrote Andrews on June 28 that he had read his letter 
in the Milledgeville Patriot, and ordered him to suspend inter- 
course with the government of Georgia. General Gaines was 
also sent down from Washington to inquire into the true state 
of things. Upon his taking side with Crowell and Andrews 
an acrimonious correspondence ensued between the governor 
and himself. Finally Troup read an open letter from Gaines 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. !S7d to 683, 618, 770. and 771. 



58 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

to himself iu the Georgia Journal, and wrote Gaines on 
August 6, "1 have lost no time to direct j^ou to forbear fur- 
ther intercourse with this government." On the next day the 
governor demanded of the President that Gaines be recalled, 
as a punishment for his intemperance of language and disre- 
spect to the constituted authorities of a sovereign State and 
the great bulk of its people. Upon the publication of a sec- 
ond letter by Gaines in the same temper as the former one, 
Troup, in the name of the government of Georgia, demanded 
'' his immediate recall, arrest, trial, and punishment under the 
articles of war." The Secretary of War replied to Troup 
on September 10, "The President has decided that he can 
not, consistently with his view of the subject, accede to your 
demand to have General Gaines arrested."'^' Andrews and 
Gaines continued to publish letters defending themselves and 
reflecting upon the Georgia government. Troup imrsed his 
wrath in silence. 

The duty for which Andrews and Gaines had been sent 
among the Creeks was to inquire into the manner in which the 
treaty of Indian Spring had been negotiated. Upon receiv- 
ing preliminary reports against the justice of the treaty. 
President Adams began steps to have the survey of the lauds 
postponed. Governor Troup informed him, however, that 
since the legislature had decided that the treaty had vested 
the jurisdiction and the right to the soil in Georgia, and had 
authorized the governor to have the lands surveyed for dis- 
tribution, the survey would promptly be made. 

The reply of the President was delayed until the receipt of 
a report from General Gaines that a very large majority of 
the Creek chiefs denounced the treaty for intrigue and treach- 
ery. Tne Secretary of War wrote to the governor of Georgia, 
July 21, 1825: "I am directed by the President to state dis- 
tinctly to your excellency that, for the present, he will not 
permit such entry or survev to be made."''' For the time 
being the governor had nothing farther to say, so he waited 
for the meeting of the legislature. He seems to have yielded 
the question of inunediate survey to fall back upon the more im- 
portant position of defending the validity of the treat}^ itself. 

" Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 603, 804, 807, 813, 816, and 817. Niles's Register, vol. 28, p. 196, 
and vol. 29, p. 14. 
6 Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 809. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 59 

The legislature very early in its session showed its attitude 
by a unanimous resolution of l)oth houses, expressing belief 
in the fairness of the treat}^ and thanking Messrs. Campbell 
and Meriwether for their services in obtaining the cession. 
A further resolution was adopted and approved December 23, 
1825, that full reliance ought to be placed in the treaty of Indian 
Spring, that the title to the territory acquired by it had 
become an absolute vested right, that nothing short of the 
whole territory acquired by it would be satisfactory, and that 
the right of entry upon the expiration of the time set in the 
treaty would be insisted upon. ** 

The Georgia delegation in Congress stated to the Secretary 
of War, on January 7, that the State refused to grant the 
invalidity of the treaty at Indian Spring upon any grounds 
yet advanced, and declared that the President knew, and had 
infor lied the Senate lief ore sending the treaty for ratification, 
of all the objections to its validity which had subsequently 
been urged. 

Notwithstanding these utterances on the part of the authoi-- 
ities of the State of Georgia, Mr. Adams instituted negotia- 
tions for a new treaty with the Creeks. At Washington 
on January 24, 1826, a treaty was signed by the Secretary of 
War and "the chiefs of the whole Creek Nation." By it the 
Creeks ceded all their lands in Georgia except a district lying 
west of the CUiattahoochee, and the United States guaranteed 
to the Creeks such lands as were not ceded. The President, 
on January 31, submitted to the ' Senate the new treat}^ as 
abrogating and replacing the treaty of Indian Spring, which 
he said had been ratified under the belief that it had been con- 
cluded with a large majority or Creek chiefs, and would soon 
be acquiesced in by the remainder, whereas, in fact, the rati- 
fying party had proved small and impotent, and, after the 
death of their two principal chiefs, were not able to put the 
treaty in force, though they still claimed all the moneys for 
themselves. He hinted at unworthy practices in negotiating 
the former treaty, but failed to mention the chicanery which 
took place in connection with the latter one.* 

a Nov. 18, 1825: Ga. Senate Journal, 1825, p. 56. Ga. Senate Journal, 1825, p. 838. Indian 
Atfairs, vol. 2, p. 741. 

?' Indian Affair.s, vol. 2, pp. 612, 613, and 717. See Benton and McKenney on the corrup- 
tion of the chief.s in the negotiations at Washington: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, 
vol. 1, p. 164. Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 665. 



60 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

During the summer of 1826 Governor Troup held little com- 
munication with Washington, but his few utterances and his 
actions show that he was not charitabl}^ disposed toward Mr. 
Adams. In June the Georgia government, with the consent 
of the President, began a survey of the boundary between 
Georgia and Alabama. On June 21^, Troup wrote the Secre- 
tary of War that the Cherokees had stopped the surveying- 
part}' with threats of force. The Secretar}' replied, August 
6, that the President protested against any use of force to 
complete the survey. Troup retorted that he had said noth- 
ing about using force, and that if he had done so it would not 
have concerned the President, since " Georgia is sovereign on 
her own soil."" 

The treaty of Indian Spring gave Georgia the right of 
entry and possession of the lands involved from September 1, 
1826. Governor Troup not recognizing any abrogation as 
valid, ordered the State surveyors to begin their work on the 
day set, although ])y the treaty of Washington the Creek title 
was to continue until January 1, 1827. When the survey 
began, some of the Creeks protested to the President. On Sep- 
tember 16, the Secretary of War protested in the name of the 
President against any survey before the end of the year. 
On October 6, Troup wrote the Secretary that the survey had 
been practically accomplished and no opposition had been 
encountered.^ 

Upon the assembling of the legislature the governor 
reviewed the progress of Indian affairs in his message of 
November 7, and exhibited the then existing status. ""The 
new treat}^," said he, ''prescribed new boundaries for Geor- 
gia, and by its perpetual guarantee made them permanent." 
The executive could not allow such a violation of the consti- 
tution of Georgia. He declared that there was such a rad- 
ical difference between the United States Government and the 
Georgia government as to the rights of sovereignty and juris- 
diction which the State claimed under her charter over the 
territory within her limits that harmony could not contiiuic 
if the Indians were to remain. ' 

The resolutions which the general assembly adopted on 
December 22 show that the situation was considered a verj^ 



"Indian AlVairs, vol. 2, pp. 7J2 and 74:5. i> lb., pp. 7-12 and 743. <• lb., p. 786. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 61 

serious and distressing- one. The preamble set forth that 
"the unfortunate misunderstanding- between the General 
Government and the State of Georgia has been marked by 
features of a peculiar character, and plainly indicating- a force 
and power in the former which should have formed the sub- 
ject of concern, if not alarm, to our sister States; but we 
regret to sa}^ that the very reverse has been the fact, and a 
cold, if not reproachful, indifference has taken the place of a 
much more deserved regard." It then proceeded to set forth 
what Georgia considered the true state of the case. "'It is 
not for forfeited privileges we supplicate, but we seek the 
redress of violated rights. * * * It is a sovereign, and 
not a subject, that sues; it is an equal, and not an inferior, 
that remonstrates." The resolutions which followed declared 
that Georgia owned exclusively the soil and jurisdiction within 
her existing chartered and conventional limits, and that the 
attempted abrogation of the treaty of Indian Spring in so far 
as it would divest Georgia of any rights acquired under the 
treaty was illegal and unconstitutional." 

Following the spirit of the legislature's resolutions, and 
ignoring the treaty of Washington, Troup directed his sur- 
veyors to cover the whole of the Creek lands in Georgia in 
their surveys; but when they entered the district not ceded 
in the last treaty they were menaced by Creek Indians. 
Troup wrote the Secretary of War of this on January 27, 
stating- that there was reason to believe that the United States 
agent was the instigator of the Creeks, and demanding whether 
he was acting- under orders. Before receiving this letter the 
Secretary of War wrote Governor Troup, January 29, that 
complaints of intrusions had reached Washington through 
the Indian agent; that the action of the surveyors was in 
direct violation of the treaty of Washington, which was 
among the supreme laws of the land, and that, "charged by 
the Constitution with the execution of the law\s, the President 
will feel himself compelled to employ, if necessary, all the 
means under his control to maintain the faith of the nation 
by carrying the treaty into effect." On the next day the Sec- 
retary directed R. W. Habersham, United States attorney for 

a Acts of Ga., 1826, p. 227; Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 733. For large collection of docu- 
ments on Creek affairs to January, 1827, see U. S. House Executive Doc. No. 59, 19th 
Congress, 2d sess., vol. 4 (404 pp.). 



62 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the district of Georgia, to obtain the proper process to have 
the United States marshal arrest the intruding surveyors/' 

Having taken these steps, Mr. Adams saw fit to ask Congress 
to share his responsibility. He therefore stated his view of 
the whole case in a message of February 6, 1827. Citing the 
United States statute of 1802, that any person attempting to 
settle or survey lands belonging to the Indians should be pun- 
ished, he stated that he had begun civil process against the 
surveyors. In abstaining in the early stage of proceedings 
from the use of the military arm he said that he had been 
governed by the consideration that the surveyors were not to 
be considered in the light of solitary transgressors, but as the 
agents of a sovereign State. Intimations had been given, he 
continued, that should the surveyors be interrupted they 
would at all hazards be sustained by the military force of the 
State, whereupon a conflict must have been imminent. Fear- 
ing a collision Ijetween the State and Federal governments, 
the President begged to submit the matter to Congress for 
legislation.''' 

Without w^aiting for definite Congressional action, Mr. 
Adams dispatched Lieutenant Vinton to Milledgeville in the 
capacity of aide of the commanding general of the United 
States forces, with a conmiunication to the efi'ect that the gov- 
ernor nmst stop the survey at once or the United States 
would take strong measures to have it stopped. 

The climax of the whole matter was now reached. Though 
Troup's course of action had excited some criticism within the 
State as well as a vast amount of it outside, the people of 
Georgia to a man were in strong support of the governor in 
this time of need. Mr. Habersham resigned his office as 
United States attorney, refusmg to array himself against his 
native State, to which he owed higher duties than to the 
United States, while all his friends applauded his action. 
The whole State rang with the slogan of '^ Troup and the 
treaty." 

George M. Troup was never known for half-heartedness in 
word or deed, but upon this occasion he fairly surpassed him- 
self as a hotspur. He wrote on February 17 to the Secretary 
of War, in reply to the document received from the hand of 

a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 865. Harden's Troup, p. 482. 
b Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 863. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 68 

Lieutenant Vinton: "You are sufficiently explicit as to the 
means by which you propose to carr}^ jour resolution into 
effect. Thus the military character of the menace is estab- 
lished and I am only at libert}^ to give it the defiance which it 
merits. You will distinctly understand, therefore, that I feel 
it my duty to resist to the utmost any military attack which 
the Government of the United States shall think proper to 
make upon the territory, the people, or the sovereignty of 
Georgia, and all the measures necessary to the performance 
of this duty, according to our limited means, are in progress. 
From the first decisive act of hostility you will be considered 
and treated as a public enemy, and with the less repugnance 
because you, to whom wo might constitutionally have ap- 
pealed for our own defense against invasion, are yourselves 
the invaders and, what is more, the unblushing allies of the 
savages whose cause you have adopted."'^' 

On the very day of his letter of defiance to the President 
the governor took what he considered the proper measures to 
counteract the usurpations of the Federal authorities. First, 
in regard to the civil arm of the State, he ordered the attorney 
and solicitor general to take legal measures to liberate any 
surveyors who might be arrested by United States officers 
and to make indictments against all such officers. Then, 
clothing himself with his military prerogative, George M. 
Troup, commander in chief of the army and navy of the State 
of Georgia, issued the following order from headquarters at 
Milledgeville: "The major-generals connnanding the Sixth \ 
and Seventh Divisions will immediately issue orders to hold in 
readiness the several regiments and battalions within their 
respective commands to repel any hostile invasion of the ter- 
ritory of this State. Depots of arms and annnunition, central 
to each division, will be established in due time."^ — 

When the documents were published throughout the coun- 
try, great interest was aroused in the very unusual state of 
things which they exhibited. Everyone was on the qui vive 
for further developments, but those were disappointed who 
looked for exciting occurrences. Certain events had already 
taken place which led to the relief of the strain. January 
31 the Secretary of War wrote Colonel Crowell, who was still 

nHarden's Troup, p. 485. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 16. 
feHarden's Troup, p. 487. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 16. 



64 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the agent to the Creeks, that the Department of War had just 
received reliable information that the Creeks would not refuse 
to sell their remaining lands in Georgia, and ordered Crowell 
to negotiate to that end/' 

Very soon after his orders of February 17 Governor Troup 
learned of the efforts which were making for the final cession, 
and took the news, as well he might, to mean that the Presi- 
dent was retreating from his position and that Georgia was 
victorious in her contest. 

Troup wrote to the Georgia Congressmen February 21, 
expressing his pleasure at learning that the President would 
try to obtain the remaining Creek lands for Georgia, This 
letter is both a pt«an of victory and a disquisition on the 
Federal Constitution. *' 1 consider all questions of mere sov- 
ereignty," he wrote, "as matter for negotiation between the 
States and the United States, until the proper tribunal shall 
be assigned by the Constitution itself for the adjustment of 
them. * * * The States can not consent to refer to the 
Supreme Court, as of right and obligation, questions of sov- 
ereignty between them and the United States, because that 
court, being of exclusive appointment by the Government of 
the United States, will make the United States the judge in 
their own cause. This reason is equally applicable to a State 
tribunal. * * * Of all the wrongs wantonly and cruelly 
inflicted, none have been borne with more patience than the 
charge of seeking a dissolution of the Union. My intentions 
have been to cement and perpetuate it by preserving, invio- 
late, the rights of the parties to the compact, without which 
the compact w^ould l)e of no value; and to this end I have 
unceasingly laljored. '"''' 

After the excitement had subsided reports were made in 
Congress by the committees to which the President's message 
of February 5 had Ixh'u referred. Accompanying its report 
with an exceedingly voluminous collection of documents, the 
House committee advised, on March 3, that it would be expe- 
dient to purchase the Indian title to all lands in Georgia, and 
"that, until such a cession is procured, the law of the land, as 
set forth in the treaty of Washington, ought to be maintained 

aXJ. S. House Executive Docs. No. 238 (p. 7), 20th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 6 
bHarden's Troup, i>. 490. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 20. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RKUITS. (;5 

by all nece.syar}' and constitutional nieans."" The report of 
the Senate committee, presented b}" its chairman, Mr. Benton, 
on March 1, was a strong'ly reasoned document, well calcu- 
lated to restore public tranquillity. Making- a resume of the 
trouble from the beginning, the report first set forth Presi- 
dent Adams's motives for his actions and tacitly expressed 
approval for what he had done. Then, investigating the 
claims made by Georgia, it set them forth with the usual 
arguments in their support. It showed that the State founded 
her claim to jurisdiction over all her chartered territorv not 
ceded in lSi)'2 by virtue of the independence of the sovereign 
States at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and 
that she appealed to the decision in the case of Fletcher r. 
Peck that the Indian title was not inconsistent with the title 
in fee in the State to the lands occupied by the Indians. It 
set forth the contention that under the agreement of 1802 the 
United States had simply the function of negotiating and 
ratifying treaties with the Indians of Georgia and no other 
power in the premises: that if the United States agents had 
committed a fraud in connection with the treaty of Indian 
Spring, the Federal authorities could not interfere with the 
rights of Georgia, completely vested by the ratification of that 
treaty, but must find some other way to indemnify the Creeks. 
The report practically justified Georgia in all that she had 
done and urged that not the slightest preparation be made for 
military force to coerce a sister State. '^ 

Negotiations were in progress during the sunuiier of 1827 
for a further cession by the Creeks, for w^hich the treaty was 
concluded on November 15.' It was afterwards found that 
even this treaty left a small amount of Georgia territory in 
the possession of the Creeks, and a final treaty was made in 
Januar}^, 1826, which extinguished the Indian title to the last 
strip of Creek land in Georgia.'^ 

" Harden's Trnup, p. 488. 

''Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 869 to 872. 

'■ U. S. House Exec. Docs. No. 238 (p. Ut, 20th Cong., 1st sess.. vol. 6. 

''Atlienian (pub. at Athens, Ga.). ,Tan. 25, 1828. 

H. Doc. 71 >2. pt. 2 5 



CHAPTER IIl.-THE EXPULSION OF THE CHEROKEES. 



At the beginning of the American Revolution the hunting- 
grounds of the Cherokees were conceded to extend from 
the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge to the neighborhood of 
the Mississippi River, and from the Ohio River almost as far 
south as central Georgia. Most of their villages, however, 
were located in eastern Tennessee and northern Georgia. 
The settlement of the country by the whites, and the acqui- 
sitions of the Indian territory by them, was naturalh" along 
the lines of least resistance. That is to say, the Cherokees 
first ceded away their remote hunting grounds and held 
most tenaciously to the section in which their towns were 
situated. 

At an early stage in the Revolution a body of militia from 
the Southern States made a successful attack upon the east- 
ern villages of the Cherokees, who were in alliance with the 
British. The tribe was at once ready for peace, and signed a 
treaty with commissioners from Georgia and South Carolina 
at Dewits Corner, on May 20, 1777, acknowledging defeat 
at the hands of the Americans, establishing peace, and yield- 
ing their title to a section of their lands, lying chiefly in 
South Carolina. 

The Cherokee families which had lived upon the lands con- 
quered now moved westward, extending the settlements of 
the tribe farther along the course of the Tennessee River. 
At the same time five new villages were built by the most 
warlike part of the nation on Chickamauga Creek and in the 
neighboring district southeast of Lookout Mountain." Before 
the end of the Revolution the Cherokees Avere again at war 
with the Americans, and Gen. Elijah Clarke led an expe- 
dition against this settlement on the Chickamauga. The 
sudden raid caused such terror in the Indian villages that the 

« Public Lands, vol. 1, p. o9. Indian Ali'iiirs, vol. 1, p. ISl. Stevens, vol. 2, p. -413. 

66 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 67 

inhabitants eagerly promised great cessions of land m order 
to be rid of the invaders. Clarke made what he called a 
treaty at Long Swamp, but the agreement was necessarily 
informal and extra-legal. The fact that it was not followed 
up b}^ the proper authorities caused Clarke to think that the 
people had not benefited sufficiently by his exertions. The 
injury to his feelings in this connection was probably respon- 
sible in part for his attempted settlement on Indian lands in 
1794. 

At the close of the Revolution, as we have already noted, 
the Cherokees ceded to Georgia their claim to a district about 
the sources of the Oconee, which the}' held as hunting ground 
in joint possession with the Creeks. In the territor}^ which 
the Cherokees retained, the districts near the Georgia settle- 
ments were less attractive than the Creek lands to the south. 
The upland region in the State was being rapidly settled, 
however, and new lands were in demand. The State made 
occasional attempts between 1785 and 1800 to obtain further 
cessions. Frequent conventions were held by commissioners 
of the United States and the Cherokee chieftains, at some of 
which representatives of Georgia were present. But the tribe 
held fast to its Georgia lands. By the treaty of Hopewell in 
1785 the Cherokee Nation placed itself under the protection 
of the United States and agreed to specified boundaries 
for its territory, but it made no cession which concerned 
Georgia. The agreement of Hopewell was confirmed at a 
convention on the Holston River in 1791, and again at Phila- 
delphia in 1793, but the boundaries on the southeast remained 
practically unchanged. ^' 

The treaty of Philadelphia was rendered necessary by hos- 
tilities arising with the tribe in 1793; the Chickamauga towns, 
as usual, provoked the unpleasantness on the Indian side, 
while the settlers on the frontier of North Carolina and Ten- 
nessee were quite as much to blame on the side of the whites. 
Considerable excitement prevailed for several months, and 
raids were made by each party; but the fact that the Creek 
country intervened between Georgia and the chief settlements 
of the Cherokees directed the warlike energies of the tribe to 
the north and northeast. 

"Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 83, 124, and 543. 



08 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL AySOCIATIUN. 

\ After 1795 no con.siderable portion of the Cherokee Nation 
was at any time .seriously inclined to war. Those of its mem- 
bers who preferred the life of hunters moved away to the far 
West, while the bulk of the tribe remaininjif settled down to 
the pursuit of agriculture. The chief complaint which Geor- 
gia could make of them in later years was that they kept 
possession of the soil, while white men wanted to secure it 
; for themselves. 

The invention of the cotton gin in 1798 had the effect after 
a few years of increasing the preference of the Georgians 
for the warm and fertile Creek lands, over the Cherokee t(>r- 
ritory which was ill adapted to cotton with the then prevail- 
ing system of agriculture. For this reason it was not until 
all of the Creek lands had been secured for settlement that 
the State authorities began to make strenuous efforts for the 
expulsion of the Cherokees. In the intervening years cer- 
tain moderate steps were taken, which must now engage our 
attention. 

As early as 1803 Thomas Jefferson suggested the advis- 
ability of removing all of the southern Indians west of the 
Mississippi, and in 1809 a delegation of Cherokees, at the 
instance of the United States Indian agent. Return J. Meigs, 
made a visit to the Western lands. At that time a consider- 
able part of the Cherokee Nation favored removal, but the 
matter was postponed. General Andrew Jackson reported, 
in 1816, that the whole nation would soon offer to move West. 
When negotiations wei"e made for a treaty in the next year 
it was found that there was a division of opinion. The Lower 
Cherokees, who lived chieffy in Georgia, were disposed to 
emigrate, while the Upper or Tennessee division of the nation 
preferred to remain and to change from their wild life to the 
pursuit of agriculture. By the treaty signed at the Cherokee 
Agency, July 8, 1817, a tract of land was ceded in Georgia, 
and arrangement was made that such Indian families as so 
desired might take up new homes in the Far West.'^' 

Within the next two years about one-third of the Cherokees 
moved into the Louisiana Territory; but it happened quite 
unexpectedly that each section of the nation had altered its 
disposition, so that a large part of the Upper C'herokees moved 

«C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, in Report of U. S. Bureiui of Ethnology, 1883-84, 
]>p. 1203 and -215. mdiiin AfTiiirs, vol. '_', \>\>. ]2'> and 129. 



GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 69 

away from Tenneysee, while rao.st of the Lower Ciierokees 
remained in Georjfia, Thus, when a treaty came to be made 
in 1S19, it was found that a largv area had been vacated to the 
north and east, but only a small district could be obtained in 
Georgia. It further appeared that, owing to the influence of 
a powerful chief named Hicks, the westward movement had 
almost completely stopped." 

The treaties of 1817 and 1819 provided that the head of an}- 
Cherokee family living- in the district ceded to the United 
States might at his option remain in possession of his home, 
together with 640 acres of land, which should descend to his 
heirs in fee simple. The Georgia legislature, of course, pro- 
tested against this provision as violative of the rights of the 
State, while Congressional committees declared that in so far 
as the treaty provided for Indians to become citizens, it in- 
fringed upon the powers of Congress.'^ The agreement was 
accordingly modified and the Cherokee family holdings were 
gradually purchased during the next few years. 

Georgia was at this period beginning to grow insistent upon 
obtaining possession of the Cherokee lands as well as those of 
the Creeks. In March of 1820, President Monroe requested 
appropriations from Congress to extinguish by treaty the 
Indian title to all lands in Georgia. When the Cherokees \ 
were officially approached upon the subject in 1823, the council 
of chiefs replied to the commissioners, Messrs. Campbell and 
Merriwether: ''It is the fixed and unalterable determination 
of this nation never again to cede one foot more of our land."* 
That part of the tribe which had emigrated had suffered 
severely from sickness, wars, and other calamities, and the 
remainder refused to follow them. To emphasize their deci-, 
sion a delegation proceeded to Washington, where they declared ] 
to the President that, "the Cherokees are not foreigners, but 
the original inhabitants of America, and that the}^ now stand 
on the soil of their own territory, and they can not recognize 
the sovereignty of an}^ State within the limits of their terri- 
tory."^ 



"Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 187, 138, 2.59, and 402. O. H. Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820, 
p. 321. 

6U. S. House Journal, 16th Cong., 1st sess., p. 336. Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820. p. 
531. U. S. Reports of Committees, No. 10, 17th Cong. 1st sess., vol. 1 (Jan. 7, 1822). U. S. 
Reports of Committees, No. 4, 17th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2 (1823). 

'•U. S. House Journal. Kith Cong.. 1st sess., p. 31.5 (Mar. 17, 1820). Indian .VfTnirs, vol. 
2, i)p. 468 and 474. 



70 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSUCIATION. 

It may easily be surmised that the chiefs who delivered this 
declaration were not full-blooded, wild Indians. As a matter 
of fact, the average member of the tribe, while not savage, 
was heavy and stupid; but the nation was under the complete 
control of its chiefs, who were usually half-breeds, or white 
men married into the nation. Many of these chiefs were 
intelligent and wealthy, but their followers continued to live 
from hand to mouth, with little ambition to better them- 
selves Each family cultivated a small field, and perhaps 
received a pittance from the annual subsidy of the United 
States; but, as a rule, the payments for cessions of land never 
percolated deeper than the stratum of the lesser chiefs. The 
attitude of the United States had undergone a great change. 
Formerly the tribes near the frontiers had been held as terri- 
ble enemies, but they had now become objects of commisera- 
tion. The policy of the Government had once been to weaken 
these tribes, but that had given place to the effort to civilize 
them." 

It is remarkable that the United States Government was 
still inclined to regard the Indian tribes in the light of sov- 
ereign nations. The Cherokee delegation was received at 
Washington in 1824: with diplomatic courtesy, and its repre- 
sentations attended to as those of a foreign power. The Con- 
gressional Representatives of Georgia viewed the matter from 
the standpoint of their State. They accordingly remonstrated 
with the President, March 10, 1824, against the practice of 
showing diplomatic courtesy to the Cherokees. They said 
that too much time had been wasted, while the Indians were 
further than ever from removal. If a peaceable purchase of 
the Cherokee land could not be made, they demanded that the 
nation be peremptorily ordered to remove and suital)ly indem- 
nified for their pains. 

Mr. Monroe replied in a message to Congress on March 30 
that the United States had done its best in the past to carry 
out the agreement of 1802, and that the Government was 
under no obligation to use other means than peaceable and 
reasonable ones. Governor Troup entered his protest against 
the message on April 24, urging that Georgia had the sole 

o Message of Governor Gilmer, Dec. 6, 1830, Nlles's Register, vol. 39, p. 339. Of. Letter of 
Superlntenrleiit of Indian Affairs to Seoretary of War, Mar. 1, 182(), Indian Affairs, vol. 
•2. ]). (iSS. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 71 

right to the lands, and denying that the Indians were privi- 
leged to refuse when a cession was demanded. The Cherokees, 
for their part, held to their contention for national rights, 
appealing to the clause in the Declaration of Independence 
''that all men are created equal," and reiterating their deter- 
mination to give up not an inch of their land.^' As far as 
concerned results, the Cherokees had the best of the argu- 
ment. The effort to drive them west was given up for the 
time. 

The delegation returned home to lead their tribesmen still 
further in the ways of civilization. A Cherokee alphabet was 
devised by Sequoyah in 1825, a printing press was set up at 
the capital, New Echota, in the following year, and soon after- 
ward steps were taken to formulate a written constitution for 
the nation. Meanwhile the Cherokee population was increas- 
ing with considerable rapidity. In 1818 an estimate had 
been made which placed the number east of the Mississippi 
at 10,000, and it was thought that 5,000 were living on the 
Western lands. A census was taken in 1825 of the Cherokee 
Nation in the East. Of native citizens there were numbered 
13,563; of white men and women married in the nations, 147 
and 73, respectively; of negro slaves, 1,277. 

The Cherokee national constitution was adopted in a con- 
vention of representatives on July 26, 1827. It asserted that 
the Cherokee Indians constituted one of the sovereign and 
independent nations of the earth, having complete jurisdiction 
over its territory, to the exclusion of the authority of any 
other State, and it provided for a representative system of 
government, modeled upon that of the United States.^ 

Of course Georgia could not countenance such a procedure. 
Governor Troup had just worsted President Adams in the 
controversy over the Creek lands, and the State was prepared 
at least to hold its own against the Cherokees. The legisla- 
ture, on December 27, adopted resolutions of no doubtful 
tenor. After praising Governor Troup for his able and 
patriotic conduct regarding the Creek lands, the preamble 
showed that since the agreement of 1802 the Indians had been 
removed entirely from Ohio, Kentucky, North and South 

aNiles's Register, vol. 26, pp. 100, 103. Indian Affair.s, vol. 3, pp. 476, 502, 736. 

''Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 651, 652. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 241. For text of 
the Cherokee eonstitntion see U. S. E.xecutive Document No. 91, 23d Cong., 2d .sess., vol. 
3. Cherokee Phoenix, Feb. 28, 1828. 



72 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

CaroliiKi, Tt'uiu'sscc, iiiid Missouri, from lu^urly all of Arkansas 
and Alabama, and that large cessions had been obtained in 
Mississippi, Illinois. Michigan, and Florida. The resolutions 
followed: ^'That the policy which has been pursued by the 
United States toward the Cherokee Indians has not been in 
good faith toward Georgia. * * * That all the lands, 
appropriated and unappropriated, which lie within the con- 
ventional limits of Georgia belong to her al)solutely; that the 
title is in her; that the Indians are tenants at her will, * * * 
and that Georgia has the right to extend her authority and 
her laws over her whole territor}^ and to coerce obedience to 
them from all descriptions of people, be they white, red, or 
black, who may reside within her limits." The document 
closed with the statement that violence would not be used to 
secure Georgia's rights until other means should have failed. " 

When a year had passed with no developments in further- 
ance of the policy of the State, Governor Forsyth advised tie 
passage of an act to extend the laws of Georgia over the 
Cherokee territory, but suggested that sucii law should not 
take eftect until the President should have had time again to 
urge the Indians to emigrate. The legislature accordingh*, 
by an act of December 20, 1828, carried out its threat of the 
previous .year, enacting that all white persons in the Cherokee 
territory should be subject to the laws of Georgia, providing 
that after June 1, 1830, all Indians resident therein should be 
subject to such laws as might be prescril)ed for them by the 
State, and declaring that after that date all laws made by the 
Cherokee Nation should be null and void.'' 

Before any further legislative steps were taken, a new and 
unexpected development arose which tended to hasten some 
early solution of the complex problem. In July, 1829, de- 
posits of gold were found in the northeastern corner of th(^ 
State, and the news rapidly spread that the tields were as rich 
as those being worked in North Carolina. As soon as the 
news was known to be authentic there came a rush of adven- 
turers into the gold lands. In the summer of 1830 there were 
probably 3,000 men frt)m various States digging gold in Cher- 
okee Georgia. The intrusion of these miners into the Chero- 



n Acts of Georgia General Assembly, 1827, p. 249. For a defense of Georgia see Benton^ 
Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 163. 

''Athenian, Nov. 18, 1828. Dawson, fU)iiii)i!ation of (icdry-id Laws. \>. 19S. Prince, Dige.st 
of the Laws of Georgia to 1837, p. 278. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 73 

kee territory was unlawful under the onactinents of three 
several governments, each clamiing jurisdiction over the re- 
gion. The United States hiws prohibited anyone from settling 
or trading on Indian territory without a special license from 
the proper United States official: the State of Georgia had 
extended its laws over the Cherokee lands, applying them, 
after June 1, 1830, to Indians as well as white men; the Chei'- 
okee Nation had passed a law that no one should settle or 
trade on their lands without a permit from their officials. '^' 

A conflict of authorities was immment, and yet at that time 
no one of the three governments, nor, indeed, all of them com- 
bined, had sufficient police service in the section to check the 
great disorder which prevailed. The government of Georgia 
was the first of the three to make an eflicient attempt to meet 
the emergency. Governor Gilmer wrote to the President 
October 29, 1S30, stating that the Cherokee lands had been 
put under the laws of Georgia, and asking that the United 
States troopvS be withdrawn. 

General Jackson, whose view of the Indian controversy was 
radically opposed to that of Mr. Adams, did not hesitate to 
reverse the policy of the Government. He had already ex- 
pressed his belief that Georgia had a rightful jurisdiction 
over her Indian lands, and he lost no time in complying with 
Mr. Gilmer's request to withdraw his troops. The general 
assembly of Georgia was called in special session in October 
for the purpose of making additional law^s for the regulation 
of the gold region. By an act of December 22, 1830, a guard 
of ()0 men was established to prevent intrusion and disorder 
at the gold mines. By the same act it was made unlawful for 
any Cherokee council or legislative body to meet, except for 
the purpose of ceding land, while the same penalty of four 
years' imprisonment was fixed to punish any Cherokee offi- 
cials who should presume to hold a court. Not content with 
this, the legislature enacted by the same law that all white 
pervsons resident in the Cherokee territory on March 1, 1831, 
or after, without a license from the governor of Georgia or 
his agent, should be guilty of a high misdemeanor, with the 
penalty provided of not less than four years' confinement in 
the penitentiary. The governor was empowered to grant 



« Athenian, August 4, 1829. Georgia Journal, September 'l. 18.30. G. White, Historieal 
Collections of Georgia, p. 1.36. 



74 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

licenses to those who should take an oath to support and de- 
fend the constitution and laws of Georgia, and uprig-htly to 
demean themselves as citizens of the State." 

The attitude of the judge of the Georgia superior court, 
who had most of the Cherokee territory in his circuit, had 
already been shown in a letter which he, Judge A, S. Clayton, 
wrote Governor Gilmer June 22, 1830, suggesting a request 
to the President for the withdrawal of the United States 
troops. Nine citizens of Hall County had just been brought 
before him l)y the Federal troops for trespassing on the 
Cherokee territory. He wrote: "When I saw the honest 
I citizens of your State paraded through the streets of our town, 
in the center of a front and rear guard of regular troops, 
i belonging, if not to a foreign, at least to another government, 
^ * * "^ for no other crime than that of going upon the soil 
of their own State, * * * 1 confess to you 1 never so dis- 
tinctly felt, as strong as m}' feelings have been on that subject, 
the deep humiliation of our condition in relation to the exer- 
cise of power on the part of the General Government within 
the jurisdiction of Georgia.'"''' 

Three months later Judge Clayton, in a charge to the grand 
jurv of Clarke County, expressed his belief in the constitu- 
tionality of the recent extension of Georgia's laws, and his 
intention to enforce it. He said that he would disregard any 
interference of the United States Supreme Court in cases 
which might arise before him from the act of Georgia. "I 
/ only require the aid of public opinion and the arm of the 
1 executive authority," he concluded, "and no court on earth 
besides our own shall ever be troubled with this question."'' 
It was with good reason that the State olhcials were deter- 
mined if possible to keep the Cherokee (questions out of the 
Federal courts. The policy of Chief Justice John Marshall 
was known to be that of consolidating the American nation 
b}^ a broad interpretation of the Federal Constitution, and a 
consequent restriction of the sphere of the State governments. 
The Cherokee chiefs had learned to their sorrow that Presi- 



" Athenian, OetoherlO anrl 20, 1830. Niles's Register, vol. 39, p. 263. Act.sof Georgia Gen- 
eral Assembly, 1830, p. 111. Prince, Digestof Georgia Laws to 1837, p.279. Georgia Journal, 
.lanuary 1, 1831. 

''The original of this letter is among the archives in the State eapitol, Atlanta, tia. 
(MSS.). 

(•Niles's Register, vol. 3S, p. 101. 



aEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 75 

dent Jacksou readily conceded all that Mr. Adams had strug- 
gled to den}^ to Georgia. The hostile legislation of Georgia 
had paralyzed the working of the Cherokee constitution. The 
President admitted the right of the State to survey the Indian 
lands, to extend its laws over thcnn, and to annul the laws of 
the Cherokees, He refused to recognize the C-herokee consti- 
tution and denied that the nation had any rights as opposed 
to Georgia. With such cold comfort from the Executive, the 
chiefs determined to resort to the judicial branch of the 
Federal Government in a final effort to save their homes f I'om 
the rapacity of Georgia. 

Mr. William Wirt was engaged as counsel ])y the Cherokees. 
On June 4, 1830, he wrote Governor Gilmer suggesting that 
the State and the Cherokee Nation make up a case before the 
United States Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of 
the attempt of Georgia to extend her laws over the territory 
in question." In ver}^ curt terms the Governor declined the 
suggestion, stating that the court mentioned had, under the 
(Constitution, no jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Wirt con- 
tinued in his championship of the Indian cause, and intro- 
duced a motion before the Supreme Court for an injunction 
to prevent the execution of the obnoxious Georgia laws. 

Before the motion for injunction was argued a case arose 
which the Cherokees thought might test the matter. George 
Tassel, a Cherokee Indian, had ])een convicted of murder in 
the Hall County superior court and lay in jail under sentence 
of death. ITpon a writ of error being carried to the United 
States Supreme Court, the State of Georgia was cited, through 
its governor, December 12, 1830, to appear and show cause 
why the writ should not be decided against the State. Gov- 
ernor Gilmer, in a message of December 22, submitted the 
citation to the legislature, stating in his own behalf, '* So far 
'ds concerns the executive department, orders received from 
the Supreme Court in any manner interfering with the deci- 
sions of the courts of the State in the constitutional exercise 
of their jurisdiction will be disregarded, and an}- attempt to 
enforce such orders will be resisted with whatever force the 
laws have placed at my command." The response of the 
general assembly was a resolution requiring the governor to 

a Niles's Register, vol. 38, pp. 69 and 71. 



76 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

iisL' all his lej>al power to repel every invasion upon the ad- 
ministration of the criminal laws of the State from whatever 
quarter. It "Resolved that the State of Georgia will never 
so far compromit her sovereig-nt}" as an independent State as 
to become a party to the case sought to be made before the 
Suj^reme Court of the United States by the writ in (question." 
The governor was authorized to send an express to Hall 
County to have the sheritf execute the laws without fail in 
the case of Tassel." 

The test case of the Cherokee Nation r. Georgia w^as soon 
afterwards reached upon the docket of the Supreme Court.'' 
The bill set forth the complainants to l)e '* the Cherokee Nation 
of Indians, a foreign state, not owning allegiance to the 
United States, nor to any State of this Union, nor to any 
prince, potentate, or state other than their own." It alleged 
that, as evidenced by numerous treaties named, the United 
States had always shown an ardent desire to lead the Chero- 
kees to a higher degree of civilization; that the Cherokee 
Nation had established a constitution and form of government, 
a code of civil and criminal laws, with courts to carry them 
out, schools, and churches; that the people had become agri- 
culturists; and that under severe provocations they had faith- 
fully observed all their treaties with the United States. The 
bill claimed for the Cherokees the l)enetit of the clauses in the 
Constitution that treaties are the supreme laws of the land, 
and judges are bound thereby, and that no State shall pass 
any law impairing the obligation of contracts. It stated that, 
in violation of the treaties, the Georgia legislature had. in 
December, 1828, passed an act to add the territory of the 
Cherokees to Carroll, Dekalb, and other counties, and to 
extend the laws of the State over the said territory; that in 
December, 1829, another act was passed to annul all laws of 
the Cherokees. It further set forth that application for pro- 
tection and for the execution of treaties had been made to the 
President, who replied, "that the President of the United 
States had no power to protect them against the laws of Geor- 
gia.'' The com})lainant asked that the court declare null the 
two laws of Georgia of 1828 and 1829; that the Georgia offi- 
cials be enjoined from interfering with Cherokee lands, mines, 

a Nlles's Register, vol. 39, pp. 338 and 339. 

hFor report of the ease, .'^ee R. Peters, jr., U.S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. .">, p. 1. 



GEUKGIA AND STATE KIGHT8. 77 

and other propert}" or with the persons of Cherokees on 
account of anj^thing done by them within the Cherokee terri- 
tory; that the pretended right of the State of Georgia to the 
possession, government, or control of the lands, mines, and 
other property of the Cherokee nation, within their territory, 
be declared by the court unfounded and void. 

On the daj^ appointed for the hearing the counsel for the 
complainant filed a supplementary bill, citing as further griev- 
ances of the Cherokees that, in accordance with a resolution of 
the Georgia legislature and in defiance of a writ of error 
allowed by the Chief Justice of the United States, the man 
called Corn Tassel, or George Tassel, had actually been 
hanged by a Georgia sheriff; that the Georgia legislature had 
passed additional laws of objectionable character, providing 
for a surve}' preparatory^ to the disposition of the Cherokee 
lands, forbidding the exercise of powers under the authority 
of the Cherokee Indians and their laws, and authorizing the 
governor to take possession of all gold mines in the Cherokee 
territory; and that the governor of Georgia had stationed an 
armed force of Georgians at the mines to enforce Georgia 
laws. The case was argued on the part of the complainant 
by Mr. Sergeant and Mr. Wirt. No counsel appeared for the 
State of Georgia. 

The opinion of the court, as rendered by Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, granted that the counsel for the plaintifi's had established 
that the Cherokee Nation Avas a State and had been treated as 
a State since the settlement of the colonies: but the majority 
of the court decided that an Indian tribe or nation in the 
United States was not a foreign state in the sense of the (yon- 
stitution and could not maintain an action in the courts of 
the United States. The decision concluded accordingly, ""If 
it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the 
tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be 
true that wrongs have been inflicted and that still greater are 
to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress 
the past or prevent the future. The motion for an injunction 
is denied." 

In a separate opinion Mr. Justice Johnson held that the 
name "State" should not be given to a people so low in grade 
of organized society as were the Indian tribes. He contended, 
with the treaty of Hopewell as an illustration, that the 



78 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

United States allotted cei'tain lands to the Cherokees, intend- 
ing to give them no more rights over the territory than those 
needed bv hunters, concluding that every advance of the In- 
dians in civilization must tend to impair the right of preemp- 
tion, .which was of course a right of the State of Georgia. 

Mr. Justice Thompson gave a dissenting opinion, in which 
Mr. Justice Story concurred, that the Cherokee Nation was 
competent to sue in the court and the desired injunction 
ought to be awarded. 

It was clear that nowhere in the opinion of the court was it 
stated that the extension of the laws of Georgia over the 
Cherokee territory was valid and constitutional. This one 
case had been thrown out of court because no standing in 
court could be conceded to the plaintiffs. The decision was 
against the Cherokee Nation for the time being; but it did 
not necessarily follow that a subsequent decision w^ould bear 
out the claims of the State of Georgia. 

Messrs. Wirt and Sergeant had brought their action against 
the State of Georgia in the name of the Cherokee Nation only 
because no yjromising opportunity for making a personal case 
had arisen. One of the complaints in the bill for injunction 
was that the cases where the Georgia laws operated in the 
Cherokee territory were allowed to drag in the Georgia courts 
so as to prevent any one of the Cherokee defendants from 
carrying his case to the United States Supreme Court by writ 
of error. An attempt had been made to utilize the Tassel 
case, but the prompt execution of the criminal put an early 
end to the project. The first case which arose of a character 
suitable for the purpose of the attorneys was upon the con- 
viction of Samuel A. Worcester for illegal residence in the 
Cherokee territory. The history of the case was as follows: 

The act of the Georgia legislature approved December 'i'l^ 
1830, which we have noticed, made it unlawful for white 
persons to reside in the Cherokee territory in Georgia without 
having taken an oath of allegiance to the State and without a 
license from the State authorities. This law was directed 
primarily against the intruding gold miners; but the message 
of the governor had stated the expediency of considering all 
white persons as intruders, without regard to the length of 
their residence or the permission of the Indians. The law 
was accordingly made one of sweeping application. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. i\) 

There were at the time resident among- the Cherokees 
twelve or more Christian missionaries and assistants, some of 
them maintained by the American Board of Commissioners 
for Foreign Missions. These men were already suspected of 
interfering in political matters and would probably have been 
made to feel the weight of the law without inviting attention 
to themselves, but they did not passively await its action. 
They held a meeting at New Echota Deceml)er 29, 1830, in 
which the} passed resolutions protesting against the extension 
of the laws of Georgia over the Indians and asserting that 
they considered the removal of the Cherokees an event most 
earnestly to be deprecated." 

After sufficient time had elapsed for the intruders to have 
taken their departure, if so disposed, the Georgia guard for 
the Cherokee territory arrested such white men as were found 
unlawfully residing therein. Among the number arrested 
were two missionaries, Messrs. Worcester and Thompson. 
On writ of habeas corpus the}^ were taken before the superior 
court of Gwinnett County, where their writ was passed upon 
b}^ Judge Cla\'ton. Their counsel pleaded for their release 
upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law of 
Georgia. The judge granted their release, but did so upon the 
ground that they were agents of the United States, since they 
were expending the United States fund for civilizing the Indi- 
ans. Governor Gilmer then sent inquiries to Washington to 
learn whether the missionaries were recognized agents of the 
Government. The reply was received that as missionaries they 
were not governmental agents, but that Mr. W^orcester was 
United States postmaster at New Echota. President Jackson, 
upon request from Georgia, removed Mr. Worcester from 
that office in order to render him amenable to the laws of the 
State. The Cherokee Phoenix, the newspaper and organ of 
the nation, expressed outraged feelings on the part of the 
Indians at the combination of the State and Federal executives 
against them. 

The governor wrote Mr. Worcester, May 16, advising his 
removal from the State to avoid arrest. Ma}' 28 Col. J. W. A. 
Sandford, commander of the Georgia Guard, wrote each of 
the missionaries that at the end of ten days ho would arrest 

n Athenian, January 25, 1831. Gilmer, Georgians, p. 381. White, Historical Collections 
of Georgia, p. 139. 



80 AMERICAN HISTUKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

them if found upon Cherokee territory in Georgia. Not- 
withstanding- their address to the governor in justification of 
their conduct, they were arrested by the guard, the Rev. 
Sanuiel A. Worcester, the Rev. Elizur Butler, and the Rev. 
James Trott, missionaries, and eight other white men, for 
illegal residence in the territory. Their trial came on in the 
September term of the Gwinnett County superior court. They 
were found guilty, and on September 15 were each sentenced 
to four years' confinement at hard labor in the State peniten- 
tiary. But a pardon and freedom were offered to each by the 
governor on condition of taking the oath of allegiance or 
promising to leave the Cherokee territory. Nine of the pris- 
oners availed themselves of the executive clemency, but 
Worcester and Butler chose rather to go to the penitentiary, 
intending to test their case before the Supreme Court." 

On the occasion of their second arrest the missionaries 
had Ix'on taken into custody by a section of the Georgia 
Guard, commanded by a subordinate officer, Colonel Nelson. 
During the journey from the scene of the arrest to the place 
of temporary confinement the treatment of the prisoners was 
needlessly rough, extending in the cases of Messrs. Worcester 
and McLeod to positive harshness and violence. These two 
clergymen complained to the head of their missionary board 
of having been put in shackles, and of other indignities. The 
S;ate government condemned the severity of the guard, and 
or.iered an inquiry made into Nelson's conduct. That officer 
explained that his course of action had been rendered neces- 
sary by the unruly character of his prisoners. The contro- 
versy was practically closed by the retort of the Rev. Mr. 
McLeod that Colonel Nelson's statements were false and his 
conduct villainous.'' 

The cases of Worcester and Butler, who refused the gov- 
ernor's conditions for pardon, were appealed to the United 
States Supreme Court, from which a writ of error was issued 
on October 27. 1831. 

Wilson Lumpkin, who had become governor of Georgia, 
submitted to the legislature on November 25, 1831. copies of 
the citations of the United States Supreme Court to the State 



" White. Historical Collections of Georgia, p. 140. Niles's Register, vol. 40, p. 296. refer- 
ring to Cherokee Phoenix, May 28. 1S31. Niles's Register, vol. 40. p. 29(i. ( ieorgia .lonrnnl. 
Seiit. 29, 1S31. Niles's Register, vol. 41, p. 17(i. 

''Gilmer. Georgians, pp. 414. 5.3(i. (ieorgia .loiunal. <>il. U, INW. and l»ec. .=S. l.><:tl 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 81 

of Geoi'o'ia to appear and .show cause wliy the jiidgineiits which 
had been made against Worcester and Batler should not he 
set aside. With the documents went a message: "In exercis- 
ing the duties of that department of the government which 
devolves upon me, I will disregard all unconstitutional requi- 
sitions, of whatever character or origin they may be, and, to 
the best of my abilities, will protect and defend the rights of 
of the State, and use the means afforded me to maintain its 
laws and constitution." 

The legislature on December :i6 adopted resolutions uphold- 
ing the constitutionality and the soundness of policy in the 
recent enactments of the State, declaring that it had become 
a question of abandoning the attempt to remove ttie Indians 
or of excluding from residence among the nation the white 
persons whose etiorts were known to l)e in opposition to the 
policy of the State. Regarding the citation received, the 
legislature resolved, ""That the State of Georgia will not 
compromit her dignity as a sovereign State, or so far yield 
her rights as a member of the Confederacy as to appear in, 
answer to, or in any way become a party to any proceedings 
])efore the Supreme Court having for their object a revisal 
or interference with the decisions of the State courts in 
criminal matters. "'' 

The hearing on the writ of* error in Worcester's case came 
up before the Supreme Court during the course of the year 
1882.^ The case was argued for the plaintiff by Messrs. Ser- 
geant, Wirt, and E. W. Chester, the State of Georgia, of 
course, not being represented. The Chief Justice, in deliv^er- 
ing the opinion of the court, went into an extensive historical 
argument. He stated that the right acquired by the English 
discovery was the exclusive right to purchase, but the "absurd 
idea that the feeble settlements on the sea coasts * * * 
acquired legitimate power to * * * occupy the lands 
from sea to sea did not enter the mind of any man." The 
grants of the king, he said, were grants against European 
powers only, and not against the natives; the power of war 
was given for defense, not for conquest. He then discussed 
the treaties of the United States with the Cherokees, declar- 
ing that in the treaty of Hopewell the expressions, "the 



«Niles's Register, vol. 41, p. 313. Acts of Georgia General Assembly, 1831, pp. 259, 21)8. 
'> F(ir rci)ort of the case Worcester v. Georgia, see G Peters, p. .'il."") it seij. 

H. Doc. 702. pt. 2 6 



82 AMEKICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Cherokees are under the protection of the United States," 
certain lands are " allotted" to the Cherokees for their " hunt- 
ing grounds," "the United States shall have the sole right of 
managing all the affairs " of the Cherokees, did not mean that 
the Cherokees were not recognized as a nation capable of 
maintaining relations of peace and war. Taking up the later 
treaties and the laws of the United States, the opinion was 
further supported that the Cherokees had been and should be 
recognized as constituting a distinct national state. 

The conclusion was reached that "the Cherokee Nation, 
then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, 
with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of 
Georgia can have no force. * * * [The whole intercourse 
is vested in the United States Government.] The act of the 
State of Georgia, under which the plaintiff was prosecuted, 
is consequently void, and the judgment a nullity. It is the 
opinion of the court that the judgment of the Georgia county 
superior court ought to be reversed and an nulled. " The case of 
Butler -y. Georgia, similar in all respects to that of Worcester, 
was in effect decided in the same manner by the opinion ren- 
dered in Worcester's case. 

The judgment for which the Cherokees had so long oeen 
hoping was thus finally rendered; but they rejoiced too soon 
if they thought that by virtue of it their troubles were at 
an end. Governor Lumpkin declared to the legislature, 
November 6, 1832, that the decision of the court was an 
attempt to " prostrate the sovereignty of this State in the exer- 
cise of its constitutional criminal jurisdiction,"' an attempt 
at usurpation which the State executive would meet with the 
spirit of determined resistance. He congratulated himself 
that the people of Georgia were unanimous in "sustaining 
the sovereignty of their State." "■ 

The unchanged attitude of Georgia boded ill for the hopes 
of the Cherokees. But the position of the Federal Executive 
rendered the situation desperate in the last degree for those 
Indians who were still determined not to give up their homes. 
President Jackson sunply refused to enforce iho judgment of 
the Supreme Court. He intimated that now that John 
Marshall had rendered his decision, he might enforce it. Of 



fiNiles's Register, vol. 13. p. 206. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 88 

course the chief justice had no authority beyond stating what 
he thought right in the case. Worcester and Butler remained 
at hard labor in the Georgia penitentiary, and tlie Cherokee 
chiefs began at length to realize that no recourse was left 
them against the tyranny of the State. 

As far as the two missionaries were concerned, they felt 
that their martyrdom had been sufficiently long, and adopted 
the course of conciliating the State in order to secure their 
liberation. They informed the attorney-general of Georgia 
on January 8, 1833, that they had instructed their counsel to 
prosecute their case no further in the Supreme Court. 
Appreciating the change in their attitude. Governor Lump- 
kin pardoned both of them January 10 on the same conditions 
that he had offered them some months before, and ordered 
their release from prison." 

Most of the people of Georgia approved of the pardoning 
of Worcester and Butler under the circumstances, but that 
action of the governor found many critics among the ultra- 
montanists. A meeting of citizens of Taliaferro County, 
which lay in the center of the hot-head section, resolved, on 
April 23, 1833, with only one dissenting vote, "That the 
executive of Georgia, in the case of the missionaries, did, 
by his conduct, sacrifice the dignit}^ of the State and prove 
himself incapable of sustaining her honor. * * - Resolved, 
further, that there is no one so well qualified to repair the 
tarnished honor of the State as our patriotic fellow-citizen, 
George M. Troup.'' 

The attacks upon Mr. Lumpkin grew so strong that in view 
of his prospective candidacy for a second term as governor 
his friends saw fit to publish the various documents and 
considerations which had led to the release of the two mis- 



sionaries 



c: b 



In the course of the year 1831 a final tilt occurred between 
the State of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation, supported by 
the Supreme Court. The case was very similar to the former 
one of George Tassel. A citation of the Supreme Court, 
dated October 28, 1834, summoned the State of Georgia to 
appear and show cause why the error shown in the writ of 



o Southern Recorder, January 17, 1833. Date of pardon given as January 14 in Nile.s's 
Register, vol. 43, p. 382. 
''Niles's Register, vol. 44, pp. 202 utid 3o9. 



84 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASS<)(1IATI0N. 

error in the ease of James Graves, tried and eonvicted of 
murder, should not be eorrected. On November 7 Mr. Lump- 
kin sent a copy of the citation to the leoisUiture, statino- that 
it constituted a third attempt to control the State in the exer- 
cise of its ordinary criminal jurisdiction. "Such attempts, 
if persevered in,'' he said, '"will eventuate in the dismember- 
ment and overthrow of our great confederacy. * * * I 
shall * * * to the utmost of my powcn-, protect and de- 
fend the rights of the State." The legislature adopted reso- 
lutions Avhich it considered appropriate to the occasion, refer- 
ring to the ''residuary mass of sovereignty wliich is inherent 
in each State * * "" in the confederacy." Graves was exe- 
cuted in due time, according to the sentence of the Georgia 
court. 

The case of Graves was superfluous so far as it concerned 
the status of the Cherokee Nation. Th(> fiasco of the decision 
in Worcester's case established the permanent triumph of 
Georgia's policv, and rendered it only a (piestion of a very 
few years when the Indians would l)e driven from their terri- 
tory within the limits of the State. 

As far as regards the Federal Executive, the government of 
Georgia stood upon the vantage ground, after 1827, which it 
had won by its victory over Mr. Adams. General Jackson 
approved of the contention of the State, and from the time of 
his inauguration used his influence foi' the removal of the 
Indians. In a message of December S. 1S29, he stated, in 
reply to the Cherokee protest against the extension of Geor- 
gia laws over them, that the attempt by the Indians to estal)- 
lish an independent government in (ireorgia and Alabama 
would not 1)e countenanced ))v the President. During 1821> 
and 1880 his agents were urging the Cherokee chiefs to make 
a cession and at the same time persuading individual tribes- 
men to move west. In the latter year he threw o])en the 
lands vacated by the piecemeal removal for disposition by 
Georgia, l)ut ordered a stop to the removal of the Cherokees 
in small parties with the purpose of building up a strong 
cession party within the tribe east of the Mississipj)!.'' 

'(Niles's Register, vol. 47, ji. TJO. (JcorKia Sciiiitc .loiimal, 1S30, p. i;59. Acts of (icorsia 
General Assembly, 1834, p. 337. 

''Athenian, December 22, 1829. message of (iovcriior flilincr. Xiles'.'< Register, vol. 3"). 
p. 339. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, \>. 'JtU. 



aEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 85 

The state government was not unmindful of its advan- 
tageous position. In 1831 the legislature directed the gov- 
ernor to have all the unceded territory in the State surveyed, 
and to distribute the land among the citizens of the State bv 
the land-lottery system. An act of December, 1834, author- 
ized the immediate occupation of the lands thus allotted, 
though it gave the Indians two years in which to remove 
from their individual holdings." 

President Jackson persisted in his attempts to persuade the 
Cherokees to remove in a bod}^ Early in 1831 it was dis- 
covered that a treaty party was developing in the nation. 
This party sent a delegation to Washington, which signed a 
preliminary treaty looking to a cession, but John Ross, the 
principal chief of the nation, protested. May 29, 1831, with 
such a show of support by the great bulk of the nation that 
the treaty failed of ratification.'' 

The division among the Cherokee leaders had at length 
opened a way for the linal success of Georgia's efforts. In 
February, 1835, two rival Cherokee delegations appeared at 
Washington, with John Ross at the head of the orthodox 
party and John Ridge as the leader of the faction in favor of 
emigration, flohn Ridge, Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot, and 
other chiefs had finally come to see the futility of opposition 
to the inevitable, and were ready to lead their people west- 
ward.' The Ridg(> party signed a treat}?^ of cession on March 
14, which requii'ed the approval of the whole Cherokee Nation 
})efore becoming effective; b»it in a council of the Cherokees, 
held at Running Waters in June, Ross succeeded in having 
the treat}' rejected.'' 

The maneuvering of the two factions in the following- 
months engendered ill-feeling among the Cherokees and 
strengthened the position of Georgia. In December, 1835, a 
council was called by United States commissioners to meet at 
New Echota. The meeting was a small one, because of the 
opposition of the Ross party; but on Decemlier 29 a treaty 



('Acts of Ga. Qen. Assem., 1831, p. 141. Acts of Ga. Gen. As.'?em., 1834, p 105. Prince, 
Digest of Ga. Laws to 1«37, p. 202. 

'>Royco, The Cherokee Nation, p. 275. 

'•Cf. Their memorial to Congress, Nov. 27, 1834, U. S. Exec. Docs. No. 91, 23d. Cong., 2d. 
sess., vol. 3. Cf. Also defense of the Treaty Policy, in letters by Elias Boudinot. formerly 
editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, Southern Banner, .Jan. 7, 1837, ff. 

dWhite, Historical Collection.s of Ga., p. 143. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 279. 
Southern Banner, .\pr. Ifi and June IS, 1835. 



8(i AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

was signed with the chiefs attending wliich provided for the 
cession of all the remaining Cherokee lands east of the Mis- 
sissippi River for 15,000,000 and lands in the West, The Ross 
party protested against the treaty, but were not able to pre- 
vent its ratification at Washington/' 

The news of the definitive ratification served only to 
increase the discontent among the Indians. A confidential 
agent of the Secretaiy of War reported, September 25, 1837, 
that upon investigation be found that the whole Cherokee 
Nation was irreconcilable to the treaty and determined that it 
should not bind them.^ 

Public sentiment thi'oughout the United States, especially 
among the opponents of the Administration, became deeply 
stirred with sympathy for the Indians. Within the halls of 
Congress Webster, Clay, and Calhoun were vigorous in their 
condemnation of the New Echota treaty.' President Van 
Buren was so influenced by this torrent of remonstrance and 
criticism as to suggest to the governors of Georgia, Alabama, 
Tennessee, and North Carolina, on May 23, 1838, that an 
extension of not more than two years be allowed in which 
the Cherokees might move away. Mr. Gilmer, who had 
again become governor of Georgia, replied, on May 28, that 
he could give the plan no sanction whatever. He feared 
that the suggestion was the beginning of another attack upon 
the sovereignty of the State, and declared his determination 
to take charge of the removal in person if the Federal 
Government should fail in its duty.'' 

There was, however, to l)e no further contest. General 
Scott had already arrived in the Cherokee country to direct 
the removal. He issued a proclamation. May 10, 1838. that 
every Cherokee man, woman^ and child nnist be on their wa}' 
west within a month. On May 18 John Ross made a last 
inefi'ectual offer to arrange a substitute treaty. The emigra- 
tion was at once pushed forward, and on December 4 the last 
party of the Cherokees took up their westward march. 

(I Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1835. p. 342. Niles's Register, vol. 49, p. 343. Benton, Thirty 
Years' View, vol. 1, p. 024. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 282. 
'' Royee, The Cherokee Nation, p. 280. 

c Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 625. Royce, The Clierokee Nation, p. 290. 
dGilmer, Georgians, pp. 240 and 538. 



CHAPTER IV.-THE TROUP AND CLARKE PARTIES. 



In nearly all of the constitutional and political matters 
which we have treated in the preceding- chapters the people 
of Georgia acted as a compact body. The ratification of the 
Federal Constitution was unanimous; the condemnation of 
the Yazoo sale was overwhelming; the demand for the Creek 
and Cherokee lands proceeded from the whole people, as well 
as from the officials. Thus, to the outside world, the State 
presented a united front. Yet internal contests were almost 
continuously waging From the close of the Revolution to 
the time of the Civil War there were factions and political 
parties in Georgia which, though the}' underwent several 
changes of name and of policy, preserved a certain degree of 
continuity through the whole period. 

This continuity of parties was due not onl}'^ to tradition in 
families and localities, but very largely to inequalities in the 
economic condition of the population. The character of these 
inequalities and the consequent differentiation of the classes 
of the people will perhaps be best understood after an inves- 
tigation of the process by which the territory of the State was 
settled. 

The establishment of Oglethorpe's colony at Savannah and 
the settlement of the coast region are well known and need no 
discussion here, A fact to be remembered is that Savannah, 
Frederica, Darien, Ebenezer, St. Mar3's, and the adjacent 
districts in the low country were settled by colonists who had 
come directly from Europe, whether English, Scotch, or 
German. The source of settlement of the hill country in 
middle Georgia, however, was quite dift'erent. The earl}- 
inhabitants were chiefly of English, Scotch, and Irish extrac- 
tion, but the}^ came into Georgia by way of Virginia and 
North Carolina instead of through Savannah.^ They had 

"G. R. Gilmer, Georgians, pp. 8 and 175. 



88 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Ih'coiiic Amerieiinized het'ore rcachino- the Ijouiidaries of 
(rcoroiii. As a rule tli(\v hud been iMig-aged in raising tobacco 
ill their former homes. The system of tobacco culture Avas 
such as to exhaust the soil quickly and to require the peri- 
odical shifting- of the farmer to new fields. When the best 
lands of the two early tobacco States had liecome exhausted, 
there began an exodus of a part of their population in search 
of fresh territory. Westward was the natural trend of migra- 
tion; })ut when the Alleghenies barred progress in that direc- 
tion, smiling valleys were seen to stretch to the southwest 
and were usually followed by the seekers for new homes. 
Thus the piedmont region of the Southern colonies was grad- 
ually settled, and at the close of the Revolution several thou- 
sand people were living in middle Georgia. 

These settlers were hardly such typical frontiersmen as 
those who crossed the mountains and exj^lored the Mississippi 
basin; yet they were very different from the dwellers upon 
the seaboard. Each family bad moved slowly across the 
country with its loaded beasts of burden, its horned cattle, 
and an occasional slave, but without vehicles, for bridle paths 
were the only roads by which to travel." Hogs, sheep, and 
l)oulti-v W(U-e not to ])e found about the earthen-floored and 
mud-plastered log (•al)ins of the early settlers, for that kind of 
})roperty was too troublesome to dri^'e or to carry.'' The 
very boldness of these })ioneers in breaking their bondage to 
the river bank is evidence of the difference in their tempera- 
ment from that of their lowland brethren, who considered 
themselves out of reach of the world when not within stone's 
throw of a creek or an inlet. This movement across the 
country began some thirty years after the founding of the 
colony; at the close of the Revolution it gathered strength 
and continued steadily to increase. The bulk of the popula- 
tion of Georgia to-day is composed of the descendants of the 
unmigrants from the neighboring States to the P^ast. 

Thei-e were, then, two centers of immigration in the early 
history of the State, and each came to have its own frontier, 
the one to the south bordering tlu^ seaboard region and not 
fai fiom navigable waterways, so depending upon the coast 
towns for market; the other on the edge of the Virginia and 

"G. Andrews, Utiuinisf eiices of an Old r.onrfria Lfiwyor. ji. T.>. 

''(iilincr, (ioorginns. 



r4E0R(UA AND STATE RTOHTS. 89 

North Carolina settlement in middle Georgia, independent of 
watercourses in the immediate vieinitv, l)Ut relying- for neces- 
sary trading upon the villages at the head of navigation on 
the several large rivers in the State. The backwoods famili(>s 
of both frontiers were similarly placed in many respects 
their contact with the Indians, their isolation from society, 
their necessity for self-reliance, and their general dearth of 
property in slaves. A peculiar result of the settlement of the 
State from these two nuclei was the development of what we 
may call a semi-frontier between them. This area lay just to 
the north of the rank of seaboard counties and extended from 
the neighborhood of the Savannah River to the edge of thc^ 
Indian country, where it joined the true frontier. It had 
nearly all of the features of the Creek and Cherokee border, 
but differed in having a few members of the planter class 
scattered among- its Cracker" citizenry and in never having 
alarms from the Indians. The region long remained thinl}^ 
settled on account of its reputation for sterility, and its inhab- 
itants yielded but very gradually to the elevating influences 
working 1)oth from the seaboard and from the hill country. 

During the Revolution, Whigs and Tories were almost 
equal in number in (leorgia. Partisans on either side carried 
on the local contest with such determination that the severity 
of the warfare in the extreme South was probably exc(>eded 
nowhere on the continent.". The [)roportion of Toiies in the 
uplands was pro])ably greater than on the seaboard, because 
the inland population was little concernc^d with taxation at the 
seaports levied upon articles which rarely found their way to 
homes where food and clothing* were .produced within the 
household a^.d where luxuries were unknown. In fact, the 
whole revolutionary spirit among Georgians was due rather 
to sympathy with the northern colonies than to any sense of 
great oppression in their own cases. The acti\e revolution 
ary movement in the colon}" originated with the settlers from 



<i An early iiccount of the Georgia Crackers is given by Aiiilion\ Stolcos, someiirae chicl 
justice of tlie colony of Georgia, writing just iit Mum lose ol the American Revolution. 
Anthony Stokes, "A View of theConstitution oi the Biitisli tolonu'> ' London. 17S3 pp.140 
and 141. Stokes designates as Crackers tlie gieat crovv.l ol immigrituts then pouring into 
the inland region ol Georgia from western Virginia and North Carolina. The stones 
which reached him at Savannah of their method ot liie were distorted and fantastic 
and yet, with proper allowance lor the author's cockney point of view, his account gives 
a valuable side light upon conditions in that period 

''H. :M'Call, History of (Georgia, vol. i 



90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIOlSr. 

New En^iand in St. John's parish, or Liberty County, and 
was caused largely by a feeling of indignation at the hard- 
ships of the people in Boston. The desire for independence 
was not rapid in spreading to the remote districts in Georgia; 
yet in the later years of the war the hill country patriots 
became more strenuous against the British and the loyalists 
than were their colleagues in the New England settlement or 
in Savannah. 

After the achievement of independence, the whole remain- 
ing population of Georgia was anxious to enjoy and perpetu- 
ate its advantages. For that reason the people were practi- 
cally un/inlmous in approving the Federal Constitution. The 
Constitution was regarded largely as a means to an end. The 
unanimity of the convention of January, 1788, in its favor 
need not indicate that the Federalist party would later control 
the State, for other influences, such as the need of the State 
for national protection against the Indians on the west and 
the Spanish in Florida, were more powerful than any party 
allegiance in causing the solid vote in favor of strong central 
government. 

The Federalist and Repulilican parties began to develop 
soon after the establishment of the new frame of government. 
The former, which should have been called the Nationalist 
instead of the Federalist party, adopted the policy of a broad 
construction of the Constitution, with the principle as a basis 
that that instrument established an Amerirai\ nation in place 
of a confederation of States; the Republican part}^, on the 
other hand, favored a strict or narrow construction of the 
powers given by the Constitution to the General Government, 
which it held to be simply a central goveriunent in a federa- 
tion of States, each of which had previously been sovereign, 
and each of which had retained for itself all rights and juris- 
diction not expressly ceded in the literal woi'ding of the Con- 
stitution. Chiefly on account of tne peculiar course of Indian 
affairs, and the suit of Chisolm against the State, the niajoritx' 
of the people in Georgia adopted the views of the Republican 
party. 

During Washington's second administration, there may 
have arisen a good deal of local discussion over the correct 
interpretation of the Constitution; but the Yazoo controversy 



Historical Report, 1901.- Phillips 



Plate 




.lUS BIEN & CO.l 



MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1796 

showing the local sQ-en^lh of Uie Federalist mid Rppublican parties as recorded 
in the returns ol the election orpresidenlial electors jii that vear 



KKPl-BLICAN MAJOKrn- 
I 1 50 to 60 per- cent of Uie total vote 

E3 60 ., 75 

ovei'75 ..,.,, 



I I 50 to 60 percent of Llio U^lal volt 



H^ Tie vol.. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 91 

arising in 1793 and 1795 dwarf od all other issues then before 
the State, Some of the Federalist leaders were found to be 
prominently connected with the bribery in the Yazoo sale, 
and we may suppose that the strength of their party was 
diminished in consequence. 

The vote recorded in the choice of electors to vote for a 
successor to President Washington gives us an opportunity 
to examine the local situation of the adherents of the two 
national parties of the period. This vote occurring in 1796, 
while the Yazoo affair was fresh in men's minds, was undoubt- 
edly affected by the excitement over the fraud; but as it 
affords the only source of knowledge to be found for the rela- 
tive strength of the Federalist and the Republicans, the 
county returns must be utilized for what they may be worth. 
The Federalists were badly beaten, carrying only 4 counties 
out of 21 and almost tying the vote in two others.^' South 
Georgia, as far as can be learned, was uniformly Republican 
and with large majorities. The remoteness of the southern 
seaboard counties from the sanctum of the "Augusta Chronicle 
and Gazette of the State,'' to which we are indebted for our 
information, is probably responsible for the failure of returns 
from those counties. Middle Georgia, though also carried by 
the Republicans, was divided in opinion. From the returns 
which we have, the indication is plain that the tv\^o centers of 
population of the State were at some variance in their political 
views, and further that there was a tendency for the frontier 
of each to support the views of its respective mother settle- 
ment. 

After 1796 the few facts which can be gleaned indicate that 
there was a dwindling in the number of voters who were pro- 
fessedly Federalists, while parodoxically the general attitude 
of the Federalist party came to be assumed in considerable 
degree by the government and people of the State. We have 
no record as to the character of the action taken by the legis- 
lature of Georgia in response to the Virginia and Kentuck}^ 
resolutions of 1 796. A message of Governor James Jackson 
is extant, dated January 6, 1799, in which he states to the 
Georgia legislature that according to the request of the gov- 
ernor of Kentucky, he transmits certain resolutions of the 
legislature of that State on the subject of the alien law of the 

aAugusta Chronicle, Dec. 17, 1796. 



^>2 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

United IState.s." The journals of the legislative houses of 
Georgia for 1799 do not now exist, the explanation being 
that they were pro1)a]>ly among the papers destroyed by 
Sherman's army during the invasion of the State in 1864. 
But there is a manuscript index to the house journal which 
contains the item. "Alien and sedition laws, resolutions re- 
lating thereto, ISO."''' Thus we know that some action was 
taken, but what that action was no one can sa}'. 

We have already noticed the extremely modest and loyal 
tone of the address and remonstrance to Congress adopted by 
the Georgia legislature in 1800. It is clear that the hand 
which wrote the document and the official body which approved 
it were under very strong Federalist influence. For some 
twent}' years succeeding the date of that address there was 
practically a cessation of the remonstrances from Georgia to 
the CVntral Government, which bad ])een so common in the 
later years of the eighteenth century, and which after 1828 
became a fixed habit of the legislature for each succeeding 
session. 

Before the occurrence of the Presidential election of 1800 
the choice of electors of the Federal Executive was again 
assumed by the general assembl3\' The reason for its removal 
from the hands of the people was that the election of State 
officers coming in October and the choice of Presidential 
electors in November the voters of the Commonwealth were 
too frequently called to the polls in each fourth year. In 
1800, as in 1796, the electoral vote of Georgia was cast for 
Mr. Jefferson against Mr. Adams, but we can not estimate 
the relative strength of the candidates in Georgia. 

The Federalist party as such lived in Georgia for a decade 
or more after its defeat in 1796, but gradually lost strength 
and dwindled away. Its contentions were upheld by the 
Augusta Herald, l>ut after 1801 that paper gave up its extreme 
partisan attitude, tacitly acknowledging the dissolution of the 
active party in the State. But, on the other hand, that a strong- 
remnant of the Federalist faction was remaining in Georgia 
as late as I8l0 is shown l)v the fact that President Meigs, of 



(I Minutes of the Georgia Executive Department MSS., volume for 1798-99, p. 357. 
bl. e., page 4:50 of the MSS. Journal for 17i)S-99. See MSS. Index of Journals oi the 
House of Representatives, 1781 to 1820. p. 9, tinder " November .session." 
I- Augusta Herald. Nov. '\ ISOO. 



Historical 


Report, 1901.- 


- Phillips. 


Plate III 








/, FRANKLIN \ 






< 


/jACKSON) V^ \ 
\ "^ ELBERT S 








V [OGLETHv' \ V 








V'';i>v^v°^"''«>>\ 
















^\ y^^^\: 1 ^^^x 








V/'^ VjefferJ ^-^ 








\V»ASHI|IGT0N\ ^N \ BURKE \. 








)^ /^SCREVEN \ 








j MONTGOMERY •V^^^°«=«\h^;A 








"^ /~\bryaJv,cha-^V 








^\/ LIBERTY \,^_j 








^NV M" 1 ntoshJ 








J GLYNN y 








/ CAMDEN f 



JULIU6 BIEN & CO LITH.N."* 

MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1800 

showing the local preponderance of >vhites and negroes as given in the returns 
of the federal census, taken in that year 

NEGROES MAJORITV WHITES MAJORITT 

I-'.; .1 50 to 60 percent of the total population | | 50 to 60 percent of the total population 
" [:i]60„75 



I 60 „ 75 

1 over 75 ., „ I I over75 , „ 

\/^-'A equal number of whites and negroes 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. ^3 

the University of Georgia, was in that year forced to resign 
his position chiefly on account of the friction of his Jefl'er- 
sonian doctrines with the Federalist tenets of the influential 
citizens in the neighborhood of Athens." 

In the early years of the new century nearly all of the 
political thinkers in the State were agreed in the support of 
the Republican party, and the so-called era of good feeling, 
to arrive at a later time to the nation as a whole, was pre- 
ceded 1)3' a similar condition of afl'airs in (icorgia. But if 
the era of good feeling is a misnomer in national politics, it 
would be much more so if applied to afl'airs in (leorgia for 
the period at which we now arrive. The recriminations and 
enmities of Yazoo times had not then died away, while Fed- 
eralist and Republican disputants were still to be heard; but 
the prominence of those former disputes was dwarfed by a 
new contest, the origin and ])asis of which was in the purely 
personal antagonisms of men in a struggle for political glory 
and civic authority. 

Although these personal enmities did not begin to attract 
general attention until about 1807, their origin dated from 
before the time of the Yazoo sale.'' While the Yazoo ques- 
tion Avas not a party issue with the Federalists and Repub- 
licans, the great majority of the Republicans were apparently 
against the sale, and th > Federalists were weakened b}' the 
charge that their party leaders had been among its supporters. 
The legislature which met in 1796 to rescind the sale of the 
lands was dominated by James Jackson, of Savannah, who 
resigned his seat in the United States Senate in order to 
return to Georgia and flght the Yazoo cabal. Though Jack- 
son won his battle in the legislature and before the people, 
he did not convince eveiyone that the sale of the lands had 
been utterly vicious. It was onl}^ natural that those who 
were attacked ))v him should actively defend themselves. We 
accordingTv find that for some years a part of the State was 
divided into Jackson and anti-Jackson factions. 

" W. H. Meigs, Life of Josiah Meigs, p. 51. 

ii An iUKinyiiious pam])lik't entitled ••Cursory remarks on men and measures in Georgia,'' 
I>rinted in 17SJ. states that in that year there were two factions in the State, the one 
made up of men eager for the extensive confiscation of loyalist property which they 
themselves might buy at a fraction of its value, the other composed ot honest, conserva- 
tive men who were, howevc-r, too passive to hold the radicals In check. This document 
eualiles lis to trace at least as far ))ri<-k as the close of the Revoluti(m the origin of the 
factions which became conspicuous at the timi' i>f the rescinding (if the Yazoo sale. 



94 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, 

From this beginning developed the system of personal 
politics in Georgia. The rescinding of the Yazoo sale was the 
work of the conservative class of Georgians and of thi« class 
James Jackson was distinctly the leader. A distinguished 
veteran of the Revolution, he was a strong type of the old 
school of Georgia gentlemen in politics. Of gentleness in the 
usual sense he had little, for he was bold to a degree, and 
intolerant of all opposition. His principles were high and his 
convictions strong. Like many men of his temperament, he 
could see only one side of a question. Thinking his oppo- 
nents to be knaves, he was accustomed in important debates 
to overwhelm them with the volume of his voice and the 
strength of his condemnation backed by his custom of sup- 
porting his statements upon the field of honor when occasion 
arose. And yet withal Jackson was a most attractive man to 
those with whom he held friendly intercourse. He recog- 
nized as friends those only who were harmonious in all rela- 
tions. A political opponent could not be up6n cordial social 
terms with him. Jackson was a lover of learning, and was a 
founder of the University of Georgia. He was an aristocrat 
and a leader of the aristocrats of his State. And above all 
he was a Georgian with his whole heart. His traits of char- 
acter are important because from conscious imitation or from 
the similar iniiuence of the same environment the same traits 
were possessed in large degree by the successive leaders in 
Georgia for decades after his death. 

General Jackson remained in Georgia for several 3^ears 
after the passage of the Yazoo rescinding act, serving- as 
governor of the State from 1798 to 1801. In 1801 he was 
again sent to the United States Senate. He died at Washing- 
ton before the expiration of his senatorial term. 

It was Jackson's policy to attract to his circle of friendship 
the promising young men of the several sections of jSeorgia." 
l*rominent among those whose attachment he cultivated was 
William Harris Crawford, a young up-country lawyer, who 
had already won sufficient distinction to be chosen by the leg- 
islature as one of the editors of the tirst accepted compilation 
of Georgia laws. Upon Jackson's withdrawal from Georgia 
politics, Crawford became the acknowledged leader of a strong 

"Letter of Jackson to John Millodf,'e. Charlton's Lifi' of Jackson, p. 181. 



GEOEUIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 95 

faction in the State, consisting of his own friends and the 
friends of Jackson. Opposed to this were the enemies of 
both, led by John Clarke and his brother, Elijah Clarke the 
younger. With the advent of Crawford as a prominent char- 
acter in politics, the inland section of Georgia came to be of 
greater consequence in political matters. As years passed 
this development continued, until the seaboard counties be- 
came comparatively unimportant in State politics. The great 
bulk of the population came to be in the interior, and a broad 
expanse of pine barrens hindered intercourse between the 
seaboard and the political center of the State. 

William H. Crawford has left little record of his work as 
a statesmen and politician w^hich will enable the student to 
form a well-defined conception of his true place in history. 
From the dearth of other material, the average American his- 
torian has followed the views of John Quincy Adams, who 
has written most fully of Crawford, but who was his most 
bitter and prejudiced adversary. In this way injustice has 
been done the man. Crawford, however, belongs to the his- 
tory of the United States rather than to that of Georgia, and 
even if the necessary evidence were at hand this would not be 
the proper place to rehabilitate him. We are here concerned 
only with his influence upon local developments, and we need 
only notice his personality in so far as it shows what kind of 
man the people of that time were most ready to follow. He 
was a tine specimen of physical manhood, very tall, and so dig- 
nilied that his critics called him haughty. Yet his manner was 
frank and unconventional, and his speech blunt and to the 
point. To his ver}^ numerous personal friends he was cordial 
and gracious, especialh^ so over his glass of toddy, of which, 
like the typical Georgian of his day, he was very fond. Craw- 
ford's judgment was strong, and he had the courage of his 
convictions when any question of personal honor was in any 
way involved. But his service as a statesman, if at any time 
he rose to that distinction, was greatly hindered by his per- 
sistent ambition. His greatest power lay in his faculty for 
organizing men in personal alignments in support of himself 
as their leader. 

There were no questions of large policy at issue between 
the Georgia factions. The situation was one which demanded 



9() AMEKICAN HlbTUKK'AL ASSOCIATION. 

an uble politician and not a statesman. For the leadersliij) of 
a faction in sucli a condition of things Crawford as a young- 
man was eminent!}' fitted. A native of Virginia, his capacity 
for leadership placed him at the head of the Virginia element 
in the popiUation of (leorgia. The importance of this ele- 
ment in the politics of the State was largely the result of the 
fact that the early innnigrants from Virginia settled in one 
neighl)orh()od about Broad River, chiefly in Elbert County. 
This Virginia settlement came to have a strong self -conscious- 
ness, and it developed a feeling which was handed down 
through generations, that men of Virginian lineage should 
stand togethcn-. The Virginia spirit was heightened by the 
fact that a strong settlement from North Carolina was planted 
a short distance to the south of Broad River, chietiy in Wilkes 
County." The rivalry which sprang up came to find its chief 
expression in politics. Largely through the friendship of 
Jackson and Crawford, an alliance was formed between the 
Virginia faction in the uplands and the aristocratic element 
on the seaboard. 

As 3'ears passed and as pi'os}>erity came to the cotton l)elt, 
a new development set in for the difierentiatioh between the 
well-to-do folk and the people without any considerable 
means. Planters became distinct from farmers in the uplands 
as well as in the lowlands. The whole white population was 
embraced wnthin these two agricultural classes, for townsmen, 
as such, were so few as to be a negligible quantity. The 
Virginians had from the first considered themselves the aristo- 
cratic element, and their opponents could not deny their 
claim. The Virginians tended to attract to their faction all 
unconnected planters, while on the other hand the farmers 
who did not succeed in accunuilating wealth, i. e., lands and 
slaves, drifted to the alignment of the North Carolinians. 
The tendency, then, was for the differentiation of parties 
upon an economic basis. 

The alliance between Jackson and Crawford constituted a 
power which for a period of years was able to carry any con- 
test which it resolved to win in State politics. After the death 
of .Jackson (he mantle of the south (Jeorgia lcad(M'ship fell upon 
George iVIichael Trou]). whom .Jackson had attached to himself 
as one of the promising young men of the State. Tiiough 

"W. II. Si>arks, Mi'iiKirics (if I'Ml'ty Years, p. 'is. (i. K. (iiliiuT. (u'nryiaiis, jiassiin. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 97 

Troup had been born among the Indians in the Alabama 
valley, he was distinctly an aristocrat. He had attended 
school at Savannah and at Flatbush, Long Island, and had 
finished with a course at Princeton College." He achieved 
distinction in Georgia politics by his service as a member 
from Chatham County in the legislature. He was acquiring 
some substance as a planter when he was elected a member of 
Congress in 1807. We ma}^ learn of his character and tem- 
perament from the account of his deeds which forms an inte- 
gral part of the history of the struggle for State rights. 

Crawford and Troup, then, were at the head of the Jack- 
son-Crawford-Troup combination in Georgia. Supported by 
the same adherents, Crawford was sent to the United States 
Senate in the same year that Troup was elected to the lower 
house of Congress. A few years later, Crawford's occupation 
with national affairs removed him from intimate contact with 
Georgia politics, while Troup became more and more the 
moving spirit of the local faction. 

In the North Carolina settlement in Georgia, the Clarke 
family had been prominent from the first.^ We have alread}'^ 
noticed the independent, headstrong, care-naught qualities of 
General Elijah Clarke of Revolutionary fame. John Clarke 
was the worthy son of such a father. Educated as much on 
the Indian warpath as in the log-cabin school, with more to 
fear from arrows and bullets than from the schoolmaster's 
rod, and perfectly fearless of either, he developed into an 
adroit Indian fighter, carried his rough and ready principles 
into politics, and so became a politician of the extreme Andrew 
Jackson type. He was not a very able man. Wilson Lump- 
kin, his strongest political colleague, has written that he sup- 
ported Clarke more from S3mipathy than from any appreciation 
of his ability. Clarke's liking for personal broils of any kind 
was illustrated in his quarrel with Crawford in which blood- 
shed on the duelling ground was a mere incident. As the 
leader of the Carolinians in Georgia, it was John Clarke's 
agreeable duty to oppose the Virginians to the full extent of 
his power. In the Kentuckj^ mountains such a state of things 
would have brought on a series of hereditary feuds. But in 
Georgia the hostile spirit found its outlet in the formation of 
hereditary political factions. 



a Harden, Life of Troup, p. 11. & Gilmer, Georgians, p. 198. 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 7 



98 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

In the tirst decade of the centuiy, the Crawford or Troup 
clique was stronger than the Clarke organization, but the two 
factions did not embrace the whole population of the State. 
Neither group of leaders followed an invariable practice of 
nominating a full ticket for all of the offices to be tilled at 
each general election, and neither gave nnich attention to town 
and county offices. It was not until some 3^ears after the close 
of the war of 1812 that the factions spread over the whole 
State and took on more distinctly the characteristics of true 
political parties. 

It is very difficult to oljtain a trustworthy ta])le of the rela- 
tive strength of the two parties in the various parts of the 
State before 1826, because the governor (until 1825) and the 
Presidential electors (18(J0 to 1826, inclusive) were chosen by 
secret ballot of the general assembly, and it is impossible even 
to trace the votes of individual legislators to their respective 
comities and districts. Members of Congress were alwavs 
elected upon a general ticket, and not according to the district 
system. Each voter wrote on hi.s ballot the prescribed number 
of the names of the candidates whom he considered worthiest. 
The whole population of the State wanted to see (ireorgia repre- 
sented in the national assembly b}^ as strong a delegation as 
possible, and a man of recognized ability when a candidate for 
Congress usually had no effective opposition from the other 
faction. 

The steps in the growth of the Clarke part}' are almost 
completely hidden from our view until six years after the 
time when it succeeded in placing its leader in the office of 
governor of the State. We are able onl}^ to catch rare 
glimpses of it before 1825 from a few Congressional elections 
and from contests in the State legislature. On the general 
ticket for Congress in 1806, the names of Elijah Clarke and 
Georgia M. Troup are to be found with those of eight other 
candidates, Avhile four of the ten were to be elected. (Clarke 
was defeated, receivmg a higher vote than Troup in six coun- 
ties, an e((ual vote in two, and a smaller vote in fourteen." 
In 1806 fludge Murry Dooly, a follower of Clarke, ran for 
Congress, but carried only four counties over Troup.'' In 
1810 Elijah (ylarkc again entered the contest, but defeated 
Troup in not a single county.' These contests were of course 

a Augusta Chronicle, Oct. 11, 1806, ff. i> lb., Oct. 6, 1808, ff. c ib., Oct. 13, 1810, ft. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 1)9 

not di recti}' between any two of the candidates, 3'et the votes 
given show approximately the number of adherents of each of 
them. It seems that during these years the Clarke party was 
losing strength. Then, and for several years afterwards, John 
Clarke on account of his interest in military affairs, was not 
conspicuous in politics. 

From ISlO to 1816 extended a period of comparative quiet in 
State politics. It was a period of nmtterings of war, and of 
actual conflict between the United States and foreign powers. 
As was natural in such a case, petty disputes were at least 
nominally dropped for the time, to give way to an undivided 
support of the policy of the General Government. 

The whole of the South was eager for measures of retalia- 
tion for the indignities which England heaped upon America. 
Georgia was strongly in support of the non-intercouse act and 
the embargo, and latei* became anxious for the declaration of 
war. The governor expressed great enthusiasm in the Amer- 
ican cause, in 1812 and 1813," and without being gainsaid in 
the State, anathematized as traitors all who opposed the war.^ 
The quota of troops assigned to the State was quickly sup- 
plied by volunteers.'" This enthusiasm, moreover, was not of 
the inexpensive variety. Though Georgia anticipated little 
experience of actual warfare with the British, she expected 
trouble with the Spanish in Florida and with the Indian tribes. 
Then, too, the stopping of the exportation of products was a 
decided hardship upon the people.'^ The editor of a promi- 
nent newspaper advised the people during the war that, since 
little prospect existed that the price of cotton would ever again 
pay the cost of cultivation, some other product, such as wheat, 
must be resorted to as an export commodity.*^ It was consid- 
ered patriotic in that period to discourage all import of 
English or French goods. Upon a public occasion on Feb- 
ruary 22, 1809, each student of the University of Georgia, 
agreeably to a resolution of the student organization, appeared 
in a complete suit of homespun cloth./ Domestic manufac- 
tures of various kinds were urged upon the people,^ but the 

«Niles's Register, vol. 3, p. 193. & lb., vol. 5, p. 209. cGa. Journal, Jan. 8, 1812. 

f'Ib., Jan. 6, 1812. <■ lb., Mar. 11, 1812. /Georgia Express (Athens), Apr. 1, 1809. 

f/A motion prevailed in the Ga. Hou.se of Reps., Nov. 6, 1814, to authorize commission- 
ers to establish a lottery to raise 17,000 to enable Henry Heald and others to erect a 
woolen factory in the upper part of the State: Ga. House Journal, 1814, p. 60. 



100 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

making of coarse cloth could alone be advanced to any .satis- 
factory point. At the end of the war the dearth of cotton in 
Europe made the price of that article so high that all energies 
in the cotton section were directed to the cultivation of the 
staple/' and with plenty of ready mone}^ the planters fell 
again into the habit of buying their manufactures from 
Europe, though from that time forward the products of the 
Northern States began to enter the South in increasing 
quantities. 

The Troup-Clarke antagonism did not become of engrossing 
interest in Georgia until after the year ISIS. The period 
immediatelj^ following the treaty of peace with Great Britain 
was too prosperous to admit of much dissension of any kind. 
It is probably not accidental that the gradual decline in the 
price of cotton from the close of 181S * coincided in time with 
the rise of political parties which tended to be made up, the 
one of the prosperous class of citizens, the other of the less 
prosperous class. In the hard times during the war of 1812 
all classes had stood together against the foreign enemy and 
against the disatfection in New England. The peace which 
followed brought prosperity and contentment. When the 
price of cotton was 80 cents a pound no man was disposed to 
find fault with his neighbor. But when economic conditions 
again reached the normal, the political differences which 
were characteristic of the time and place again became 
important. 

Pearly in ISIO it became generally known that John Clarke 
woidd ])e a candidate for election as governor of Georgia. 
The opposing faction took this news as a challenge to combat, 
and replied by announcing that Troup would resign his seat 
in the United States Senate to oppose Clarke in the guberna- 
torial contest.'" In the summer of 1819 the period of quiet in 
local politics was fully at an end. The State rang- with 
discussion. 

Though the stump speaker did not at that time exist as an 

aGa. Journal, July 19, ISln. 
I'Avcrai/r price of cotton, 1815-1821. 



Ccnt.s. 

181.5 21 

1 «1C 29 

1817 26 

1818 34 



Cents. 

1819 24 

1820 17 

1821 11 



■Ga. Journal, Sept. 29, 1810. 



GEORGIA AND STATE KIGHTS. 101 

institution, the partisan editor was very well developed. 
Not only did editors themselves write in support of their can- 
didates, but the colunuis of their papers were filled with the 
partisan writings of numerous contributors, always, of course, 
on the side with the editors of the respective journals. 
Farmers adjourned from the cotton fields to the crossroad 
stores, where opinions were exchanged and extensive arguments 
delivered upon the engrossing topic of Troup and Clarke. 
A correspondent wrote in the columns of the Georgia Journal 
that electioneering was running higher in the State than he 
had ever witnessed in any preceding year, and proceeded to 
deprecate the evils of the times. '^^ The excitement culminated 
in the election of governor by the legislature in November, 
which resulted in the triumph of Clarke over Troup with 
thirteen votes majority.'^ 

After the crisis had passed, politics were quiet for nearly 
two years. The Congressional election of 1820, like others 
of the time, tells us nothing. It happened that there was no 
strong Clarke candidate in the contest of that year. The 
opponents of the successful Troup candidates were of such 
little weight that it is even difficult to determine which faction 
gave them their support. But, as the time approached for 
the next gubernatorial contest, the State again became 
excited.'" The two candidates, who were the same as before, 
were praised or criticised in the newspapers by "Veritas,*' 
"Homo," "A Georgian," "A Planter," " An 'Up-Country 
Man," and numerous other anon3auous sci'ibblers. Clarke was 
accused of having shot at an effigy of General Washington 
and of having been a Federalist. Troup's father was said to 
have been a Tory. A Clarke adherent railed at "that class 
of electors who had become so slavishly accustomed to the 
triumph of the candidates put forward annually or bienni- 
ally by Crawford and his friends at Athens."'^ Another 
wrote that the Crawford party was determined to defeat 
Clarke because a show of strength in Georgia was essential 
to Crawford's election to the Presidency. As November 
approached it became evident that the race would be ex- 
ceedingly close. The unheard of practice was instituted of 
voting for candidates for the legislature according to their 

a Ga. Journal, Sept. 28, 1819. '> Harden, Life of Troup, p. 168. 

<-Ga. Journal, Mar. 2(!, Apr, 17, June -JO, July 27, 1821. rflb., Sept. IS, 1821. 



102 AMERICAN HISTOKTOAL ASSOCIATION. 

known preference for one or the other of the yuheriuitorial 
candidates." 

Election day finally tirrived. The united o-eneral a.ssembly 
met in the hall of the lower house and the ballot for g-overnor 
was taken. The gallery was crowded with spectators, and 
many who could not gain entrance waited for news on the 
steps and on the grounds of the statehouse. The pervading 
anxiety was as great as if the freedom of the country were in 
suspense instead of the election of one hot-head or another as 
governor of Georgia, with no appreciable question of policy 
at stake. The result of the ballot was the election of Clarke, 
with only two votes majority. 

The defeat served only to increase the determination of the 
Troup party. The Clarke men were no less resolute upon 
winning the next contest. 

The campaigning for the next two years was quiet, but 
steady and earnest. Troup again stood for the coveted office 
of governor. Clarke did not try for a third election, but his 
party put forward Matthew Talliot as its champion. The two 
houses of the legislature met in joint session on November 6, 
1823, to cast their ballots, and the contest was as doubtful as 
before. The same evidences of suspense were visible as in 
1821, both in Milledgeville and in the State at large. Within 
the hall of assembly the partisans had wrought themselves 
into a state of acute tension. It so happened that when 
162 ballots had been counted the tall}- stood 81 and 81, 
with -4 votes still in the hat. These proved to be all for 
Troup, and the house went wild.'^ A picturesque figure 
was that of Jesse Mercer, who staggered out overcome 
with joy, loudly praising heaven that he had lived to see 
the day. 

This old man was for many years a prominent clergyman 
of the Baptist Church in Georgia. He mixed politics with 
his gospel to such an extent that he never failed to carry his 
county overwhelmingly for Crawford or Troup or the candi- 
dates of their party, (xovernor Lumpkin lays at his door 
many of the votes that were cast against him in his luunerous 
campaigns, saying that although the Baptist Church was not 

aGa. Journal, Sept. 11, 1821. 

ftSparks, Memories of Fifty Yeiirs, i>. Vis. Cf. Harden, Life of 'Irouii, \>. 170. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 103 

51 unit 111 politics, yet Mercer always carried the bulk of its 
members for the Troup candidates." 

Troup had at last won the governor's chair, but neither 
success nor defeat could put an end to the local strife. Be- 
fore the next election occurred the Clarke party, as it claimed, 
had succeeded in having the choice of the chief magistrate 
given into the hands of the people,'' and the election of gov- 
ernor in 1825 was the first popular one in the history of the 
State. For that struggle John Clarke again authorized the 
use of his name as a candidate, opposing his old adversary, 
George Troup. The fact that the election was to be in the 
hands of the people was not calculated to make the contest 
the less spirited. The candidature of hoth. men was an- 
nounced early in April of 1825,^ though the voting was not 
to occur until October 3. 

This was one of the hardest fought battles ever waged in 
State politics upon a personal question. Every doubtful voter 
was besieged, cozened, and probably bribed where possible, by 
zealous partisans. Troup's administration had been a strong 
one, but Clarke had also given very general satisfaction in his 
four years' tenure of the office. Criticisms were made upon 
the past official acts of both candidates, and more upon 
Troup's than upon Clarke's, but Troup had dealt with the 
more difficult questions, and his management of them found 
enthusiastic praise as well as strong condemnation. Election 
day arrived and passed and the struggle was ended, but weary 
days and weeks dragged past before anyone could know who 
had been elected.'^ At length the returns from the counties 
on the farthest frontier reached Milledgeville, and it was 
known that Troup had been elected with a majority of 683 
votes. It is of interest to note that the majority in the State 
assembly elected on the same day was of the Clarke faction, 
which means that Troup would probably have been defeated 
if his election had depended upon the old system.' 

At this point we have a direct vote of the Troup and Clarke 
parties. By making a map showing the vote in each county, 
several interesting phenomena are Ijrought into view which 

"Wilson Lumpkin, incidents connected with the life of W. Lumpkin, vol. 1, circ, p. 670. 
(MSS.) 
''Ga. Journal, Fob. A, 1824. <• Hardin, Life of Troup, p. 3;it. 

''lb., p. 3%. «'(ia. .lournal, Dec. 27, 1S25. 



104 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

would otherwise be obscure if not entirel^y hidden. It is to 
be remembered that in 1796 the Federalists were chiefly in 
the up-country and that the Republicans tended to have their 
heaviest majorities near tide water. The map before us now 
bears little resemblance to that of the former period, but it 
shows the connection or lack of connection between the two 
parties in the State at the two epochs. Governor Wilson 
Lumpkin, whose manuscript autobiog-raph}^ the writer has 
had the privilege of reading in part, states that in the second 
decade of the century there were a greater numl)er of men in 
the State holding Federalist views than was generall}' sus- 
pected, and that most of them had joined the ranks of the 
Clarke party." From such individual cases as can be traced 
this seems to be borne out. Yet the Federalists gradually 
abandoned their party alignment and again there were great 
numbers in the Clarke party who had- never advocated Fed- 
eralist doctrines, and the connection can not be depended upon 
as being at all vital. 

The map of the vote of 1825 shows that parties had become 
divided territorially upon a basis entirel}" different from that 
of the former period. It shows that Troup's stronghold coin- 
cided with the two centers of immigration, Avhile on the whole 
frontier Clarke's majority was uniform!}^ heavy; that the older 
and more advanced parts of the State supported Troup, and 
all of the liackwoods region was against him. There are two 
exceptions to be observed in this broad statement of the 
county vote, and only two. One of these occurred in the case 
of three of the easternmost counties of middle Georgia, which 
were among the very first to be settled in that region, and 
which contained many of the most progressive citizens of the 
State. Yet these three counties were carried for Clarke 
against the general tendency. The reason for this exception 
is readily discovered. Lincoln County was the home of Judge 
Doolv, one of the foremost leaders of the Clarke constituency, 
and probably the ablest politician of all Troup's opponents. 
Richmond County was carriinl for Clarke l)y thi^ efiorts of a 
small band of its citizens l)()und to iiim by ptn'sonal ties, con- 
spicuous among whom was W. J. Hobby, a brotiier-in-law of 
Clarke and the owner of the Augusta Chronicle.'' The out- 
spoken hostility of his paper toward Troup was probably 

'I Lumpkin, Iiicidonts (MSS.), vol. 1, circ, p. 30. '-(in. .Ii.mnal, Sept. i.. l.viC. 



Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. 



Plate IV 




-lUS uiEN & CO ; 



MAP OF GF:0RGIA IN 182 3 



slio-win^ the local stron^ht of the Troup and Clarke parties as 
recorded mfhe returns of the gubernatorial election of that year 

TROT.TP MAJORITY CLARKE MAJORITY 

I I 50 to 60 per cent of the total vote | | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote 

I I 60 „ 75 „ „ „ I ] 60 „ 75 , , 

I I over 75 , „ , „ |. ,;. :| over 75 , 

jv-o>'Vrit' VI lie 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 105 

responsible for the Clarke majorities in hotli Richmond and 
Columbia. These two and Lincoln were adjoining- counties, 
and were very sympathetic. It was a period of personal politics, 
and it is not surprising that the personal advocacy of intimate 
friends of the two candidates was extremely influential in 
deciding- the local vote. Furthermore, these counties had 
been settled largely by North Carolinians, who were clan- 
nishly disposed to rally round any one of their fellows who 
needed their support. The other exception was in the case 
of a line of counties along the Oconee and Altamaha rivers, 
viz, Laurens, Montgomery, and Tattnall. They were situ- 
ated at the junction of the semi-frontier, previously charac- 
terized, with the Indian border counties, and we should expect 
the vote in them to be in favor of Clarke; but the fact that 
the counties went against him is fully explained by the state- 
ment that they lay in Troup's home section, an argument 
more weighty then than now." 

The contrast between the old settlements and the frontier 
was only an evidence of the more fundamental contrast in the 
economic conditions of the classes of the people in the State. 
When the map of the election of 1825 is compared with a 
map drawn to illustrate the returns of the State census of 
1824, a very close relation is seen to exist between the two. 
With the exceptions of Lincoln, Columbia and Richmond, 
and Laurens, Montgomery and Tattnall counties, already 
explained, the counties giving Troup majorities were almost 
identical with those having- more negroes than whites in their 
population. This striking similarity of the maps is highly 
significant, for the reason that the presence in a county of a 
large proportion of negroes, 99 per cent of whom were slaves, 
is conclusive evidence, in view of the system prevailing, that 
a large proportion of the white people of that county were 
of the well-to-do class. With this line of reasoning and 
illustration we reach a conclusion which strongly supports 
our former statement that the slave owners, who constituted 
the well-to-do class in Georgia, were as a rule members of 
the Troup party, and that the poorer whites, who tended to 
be the more numerous on the edges of settlement, were as a 
rule members of the Clarke part}'. 

In the eighteenth century the economic geography of 

'( Hanlfii, Life olTroui), )>. ;Wy. 



106 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Georgia was .such as to causo a strong contrast between the 
seaboard and the uphmds. But the invention of the cotton 
gin and of other textik> niachiner} , and the extensive intro- 
duction of cotton culture into the red hill section of the State, 
brought a fundamental change in the relationship of the sec- 
tions. Cotton culture made slave labor distinctly profitable, 
and accordingly the plantation system came to thrive in the 
uplands as on the seaboard. After the industrial systems of 
the two areas had grown similar, their political and social 
views did not long remain in contrast. In 1825 the economic, 
and therefore the political and social, distinction was between 
the old settlements and the frontier. 

It was largely accidental that the first strong settlement in 
the uplands was made in the later cotton growing section; 
but it was quite natural that the older counties in the cotton 
belt should l)e the first in that belt to become prosperous and 
to develop aristocratic feeling. At a later time, when the soil 
of the eastern counties had liecome partly exhausted, there 
was a migration of planters westward; but before 1825 the 
tendency was for those who were gaining wealth and increas- 
ing their number of slaves and acres to remain in their home- 
steads and buy up the lands of their less prosperous neighbors, 
who would then remove to the fi'ontier or to the districts to 
the north or the south of the cotton belt, which were ill 
adapted to the plantation system. 

It is essential to remember that, although the fact w^as not 
frequently stated at the time, the Troup and Clarke parties 
were based upon a fundamental diti'erence in the economic 
conditions of the people. As we follow the developments in 
the succeeding decades, we shall see that these parties changed 
their names more than once, and attempted to <"hange their 
character, ))ut that the division of parties according to economic 
and social conditions and dependent upon economic geography 
was more powerful for continuity than were the influence 
of leaders or the dictates of policy wIkmi they tended t(nvai-d 
a disorganization of the alignment. 

Industrial and social conditions wove of course^ nothing more 
than the general basis for the division of the people into 
political factions. There was nothing like an invariable cus- 
tom that a man who had slaves should vote for Troup and a 
man who had no slaves should vot(^ for Clarke, nor that the 



Historical Report, 1901- Piiillips. 



Plate V 



CLA9KE( 



IMONROEV JONES \, ^-/Hj^ftSHlNGTONN SON \ gURKE 





N 


'CRAWFORD>-^ 


Jrv»iGGs\ J— 


^ 


) ^ 


\^ \y^ ^ EMANUEL^ ^\X\ 




HOUSTON / \ LAURENS \ / \ \ 


( 




PULASKI \ y^ 7 V \/ V 


( >. y^ONTGOMERY/ t^ttNALL ^-s^RyAtJkcH^T^ 


\ \ /'^ ^^^ / / ^^ Vham 


/ OOOLY /N__.^ 




^V/ LIBERTY \^^ 


f / 


TELFAIR 


APPLING / ^-^--. f O 

/ NV M« INTOSMy 


/ / 


/ IRWIN 




/ ^A, J 




baker 








_^ 


/ { ^^ 


EARLY 






/ X_y^ GLYNN j) 


\ 


THOMAS 


LOWNDES 


WARE / 3 
/ CAMDEN ( 


Vri- 






^S''"'*^ 



.IJS KiEN & CO. I 



MAP OF GEORGIA IN 182 5 

shoAvini> local preponderance of whites andne^roes as ^h'cn 
in a state census taken in tlie Fall oi 1824 

NKGROES MAJORITY Vi^HITES MAJORITY" 

I 50 to 60 percent of the total population ! j 50 to 60 percent of tlio total population 

g 60 .. 75 [^ 60 '„ 75 . . 

o\'er75 ., fc"^ over75 . , „ ., 

above 9() ' " 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 107 

possession of five slaves or more should support one candidate 
while the owner of four negroes or less should rally to the 
other. The line of separation between the classes was itself 
vague and varying. The great bulk of the slaveholders were 
slaveholders in a very small way. It was the ambition of 
most of these to increase the number of their servants and 
their acres, and it was the hope of most of the poor whites 
that at some day they themselves might ))ecome slave owners. 
Thrift and improvidence caused elevation and retrogression 
in the scale of wealth in many individual cases. The existence 
of professional men and merchants as a part of the population 
tended to prevent the exclusive ranking of citizens by their 
holdings of slaves and lands. 

The contrast between the extremes of wealth and poverty 
in the South has been exaggerated. A score of slaves was 
considered a large number for one family to own in the cot- 
ton belt in this period. This meant only a moderate degree 
of comfort for the family, and that only when the plantation 
was well managed and the price of cotton satisfactory. It is 
manifestly al)surd to speak of the planters as manorial lords. 
On the other hand the condition of the poor whites was far 
from the extreme of human misery. The land lottery system 
adopted by the State government for the distribution of the 
public domain either gave to each family a homestead out- 
right, or rendered it very easy for settlers to buy land in the 
frontier districts at very low prices. As a rule each farmer 
owned his land and his live stock. His farm produced the 
necessities of life, in abundance dependent upon the degree 
of his industry. He had such small luxuries as fruit and 
melons of his own raising, game of his own killing, and often 
liquors of his own or his neighbor's distilling. The sale of 
his market crop enal^led him to purchase in limited amount 
such commodities as he did not produce. The hardship of 
his remoteness from markets was not peculiar to his own lot 
as contrasted with that of the planter. 

The social system was by no means rigid in the cotton belt. 
Such wealth as the planters had gained was of too recent 
acquisition to permit of their l)eing supercilious about manual 
labor. The average slaveholder encouraged his negroes in 
the fields by following his own plow oi by leading the cotton 
choppers with his hoe in his hand, and not by watching them 



108 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

from a stump in the shade or bv dr'nini;- them by the liourish 
of a whip. The hard-working poor man had the recognition 
and respect of the planters. It was only the slovenh' and 
shiftless "poor white trash'" who had the contempt of self- 
respecting- white men and self-respecting negroes. 

The political situation, far from being absolutely fixed by 
industrial relations, was strongly influenced by personal 
friendships or antipathies, and by inherited affiliations. But 
on the whole it is correct to say that as a very general rule 
the poorer class of citizens, who were chiefly on the edges of 
settlement, were the chief supporters of Clarke, while the 
sla\'eholders were usually members of the Troup party. 

During the existence of the Troup and Clarke parties there 
was no antagonism between them upon the ground of any 
policy followed by the State or the Central Government. 
The only occasion upon which the local factions took different 
sides on any political matter outside of the State was that of 
the Presidential contest of 18:^4; while that contest was one of 
a personal character, not involving an}" platform or policy. The 
candidates for the office were John Quincy Adams, Andrew 
Jackson, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay. The Troup 
party in Georgia was of course very enthusiastic in support- 
ing Mr. Crawford, who had for years been at its head. The 
leaders of the Clarke party persuaded many of their followers 
to rally around Jackson's banner in opposition. Mr. Craw- 
ford's chances for election were excellent, until a short time 
before the date of l)alloting he was stricken with paralvsis, 
too severely in the opinion of many people to discharge the 
duties of the Presidency. His friends in Georgia, however, 
refused to forsake his cause, and the legislature chose Craw- 
ford electors with a vote of about two to one. The electoral 
college failing to make a choice in this instance, the United 
States House of Representatives elected Mi-. Adams, who was 
probably less acceptable to Georgians than any other one of 
the candidates. 

There was the appearance of some difference of principles 
in 1825, when Governor Troup had some unpleasantness with 
the Indian agent, Colonel Crowell, causing that official to 
bestir himself in an effort to prevent Troup's reelection." 

"Savannah Republican. .Tuni' 15, 1S'J5. Harden, Life of Troup, \>. :53f>. cf. also. Indian 
Affairs, vol. 2, p 580. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 109 

Thus the few who were opposed to the expulsion of the 
Indians from the State took sides with Clarke and seemed to 
be in unison with his party. But the fact that the treaty 
which Troup succeeded in having made with the Creeks was 
approved by the Georgia house of representatives, with a 
unanimous vote," shows the real agreement of the local par- 
ties upon the Indian question.'' 

We have already noted that the legislature elected in 1825 
had a majority of Clarke members.'' This assembly passed a 
law dividing the State into Congressional districts, providing 
that only one Congressman could be elected from each dis- 
trict, but permitting each voter to vote for one candidate in 
each district.'^ Some gerrymandering appears upon mapping 
the districts according to the act, but as the governor was 
known to be opposed to the majorit}^ in the assembly, the act 
had to be framed so as not to incur his veto. The object of 
the act was to give the Clarke party more chance of repre- 
sentation in Congress. All of the best-known men in the 
State lived in the eastern counties and were of the Troup 
party; but after the passage of the act a certain number of 
candidates from the west were guaranteed election, while 
these men were most likely to be of the Clarke party. This 
movement then is seen to have been merely for party advan- 
tage, and is no evidence of a division upon true policy. 

For several years after 1825 there was comparative quiet 
in the State, no considerable questions of polic}" arising to 
cause disagreement. The parties maintained their organiza- 
tion, and seem to have come into better understanding of their 
own respective composition and circumstances. In 1827 a 
correspondent of Clarke leanings wrote in the Augusta 
Chronicle, then the most influential of the Clarke journals, 
explaining to persons outside the State the real points of 
dift'erence between the two local factions.' His statements 
substantiate the distinctions above set forth in regard to 
social and economic classes, and show that some difl'erences 
of policy were springing into existence. But he goes further 
to claim democratic principles in the past as agamst the 
Troup aristocrats, which a more impartial critic will hardly 

"Savannah Republican, Nov. 22, 1825. ''lb.. July 2, 1S25. 

'• Georgia Journal, Doc. 27, 1835. il lb., Dec, 1825, and Jan., 1826. 

e Augusta Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1827. 



110 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

grant in full. He claims that the Clarke partj'^ had put the 
election of governor and of Presidential electors into the hands 
of the people against Troup opposition. This is not fully cor- 
roborated in other material, which shows the voters on the 
questions to have been very generally divided between sections 
and parties. It was true in general that the Troup party was 
the more aristocratic and the Clarke party the more plebeian, 
but on account of the personal equation there was so much 
intermixture of classes in each party that any partisan state- 
ment beyond this must }>e accepted only with allowance for 
the point of view. 

Troup's second term expired in the fall of 1827, and both 
sides prepared for the coming fray, but the Clarke party was 
greatly dismayed by the death of their candidate, Mathew 
Talbot, only a few days before the election, and John Forsyth 
obtained the chair without opposition." At the same time 
as the gubernatorial election of 1827 occurred a contest for a 
vacant seat in Congress, which is of some interest, although 
no heavy vote was cast. George R. Gilmer and Thos. U. P. 
Charlton, both Troup men, offered themselv^es as candidates.^ 
Some of the Clarke leaders decided to put Charlton under 
obligations by supporting him in the race; but the Troup 
party, resolving not to permit their adversaries to have the 
balance of power, concentrated upon Gilmer. Thereupon 
the Clarke party, seeing that it could not gain its enterprise, 
broke ranks and let its adherents vote as they chose. Gilmer 
was victorious, with a heavy majority. 

It was generally recognized that nearly all the lawyers in 
Georgia were in the Troup ranks, and that the men of the bar 
were leaders in politics. We may reasonably suppose that 
the men were fi-om the ranks of the budding Clarke party 
who in 1810 presented to the legislature a petition begging 
the abolition of "the most useless pest that ever disgraced 
civil society — the lawyers."'' Since most of the lawyers were 
"Troupers," the Clarke party occasionally lacked a leader. 
This was the case in 1829 when two Troup men became con- 
testants for the executive chair. The Clarke party really 
possessed the balance of power in this election, and it was 

"Augusta Chronicle and Ga. Journal, October, 1827. 

'>Ga. .Journal, Savannah Republican, and Augusta Clironicle, Sept., 18*^ 

<■ Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 21, 1831. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. Ill 

owing to its support that Gilmer obtained a tremendous 
victory over his competitor, eToel Crawford/' But the 
schemers were finally balked in their plans, for Gilmer 
declined to consider himself under obligations to return anj^ 
favors which an opposing faction had shown him while seeking 
its own interests.''' Naturally this attitude on the part of the 
new governor was not pleasing to his quondam supporters, 
who accordingly resolved to defeat him at all costs should he 
try for reelection. '' 

After the close of the great gubernatorial contest in 1825 
an increasing dissatisfaction was evident in the State regard- 
ing the personal character of the political factions into which 
the people were divided. There were continual complaints of 
this fi'om intelligent voters, and demands were made that 
there be a change "from men to measures'' as a basis for 
political difference. The comparatively quiet period from 
1825 to 1832 was a suitable time for such a change to be 
brought about, but for some years no question of policy could 
be found upon which the parties could disagree. Upon Indian 
affairs, upon the tariff*, upon internal improvements, upon 
slavery, and in less degree upon the United States Bank, the 
leaders of each party had ideas, sometimes of decided char- 
acter, but in each case these ideas happened to be practically 
the same. 

A germ of party disagreement, however, was developing 
from the course of Indian aff'airs. The history of the friction 
over the Creek lands has shown us that in this period Georgia 
assumed a very pronounced position in the contention for 
State rights. It was natural that the slaveholders, courageous 
and masterful in their disposition, should take the lead in 
such a movement and should carry it forward with heightened 
zeal when the Federal authorities threatened to make trou])le. 

The aggressive and belligerent policy of Governor Troup 
at the head of the hotspurs brought severe criticism from 
without the State. After a time this had the effect within the 
State of showing the leaders of the Clarke party that although 
Troup had gained the material part of his contention against 
Adams, such radical action was not admissible as a general 

oAthenian (Athens, Ga.), Oct. 7, 1829. 

''Augusta Chronicle and CJa. Journal, October, 1827. 

c Gilmer, Georgian.s, p. 459. 



112 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

rule. This disapproval of Troup's polic,y by his local 
adversaries seemed to open a way for the substitution of 
measures for men as the chief consideration in the party 
alignment. Meanwhile John Clarke had withdrawn from 
Georgia politics by removing to Florida. The plan was sug- 
gested by some one that the Clarke party change its name to 
that of the Union party. The plan was informally approved by 
the rank and iile of Clarke's former colleagues, and the name 
of the old champion gradually lost its usage as a shibboleth. 

The Troup leaders were nothing loth to answer the chal- 
lenge. They replied by avowing State rights as their prin- 
ciple and using it as their slogan. Their followers assented 
to the change. After the lapse of a few 3'^ears, in which both 
sets of titles were in use by the people, the names State Rights 
and Union came to designate the local organizations. The 
process of name changing was begun in 1829 and was com- 
pleted in 1832, though for some years afterwards the parties 
continued to be spoken of occasionally by their personal titles. 

We shall see in a later chapter how well or how ill the poli- 
cies suggested by their new names were maintained by the 
two parties respectively. 



CHAPTER V.-THE STATE RIGHTS AND UNION PARTIES. 



The preceding chapter has prepared us to follow the history 
of parties and politics in Georg-ia after 1830; but it is well, 
before proceeding, to make another and final review of the 
previous decade, dealing with such matters as internal improve- 
ments and the protective tariff, which, in addition to Indian 
affairs, were instrumental in bringing about the existing com- 
plexion of things and made possible the course which history 
pursued for the following thirty years. 

We have already seen that from about 1798 to about 1823 
there stretched a period of comparative reaction in Georgia 
against advanced theories of State sovereignty, or at least a 
period of quiescence on the subject. It may be observed that 
as late as December 12, 1821, there was introduced into the 
State senate, apropos of the controversy which had lately been 
waging elsewhere over the constitutionality of the United 
States Bank, a resolution which well expressed the attitude of 
the people during the quiescent period: 

"In the conflict between the Federal and State authorities 
the State of Georgia will not enlist herself on either side. 
She regards the Federal union of the States as the best safe- 
guard against intestinal discord, and the injuries of foreign 
powers. She is disposed to concede to the Federal and State 
governments, respectively, those powers which are intrusted 
to the former and reserved to the latter in the Federal 
Constitution." « 

The policy of a protective tariff to industries, which later 
aroused so much hostility in Georgia, was adopted by the 
Amei-ican Government as a result of certain developments 
during the war of 1812. At the beginning of that struggle 
America imported nearly all of her manufactured articles 



f'Niles' Register, vol. 21, j)p. 2%. 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 8 ii3 



114 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

froui abroad. But when the British warships swept the 
Yankee trading and fishing- vessels off the seas, the attention 
of the New England people was turned to manufactures as a 
substitute occupation. At the end of the war the industries 
which had recently been flourishing in the enjoyment of a 
monopoly of the home market were sadly hurt by the revived 
stream of imports from Europe. The Eastern States clamored 
for help from Congress, and in consequence the beginning of 
the protective system was made. 

During the course of the war of 1812 the people of Geor- 
gia had strongly approved of domestic manufacture as a patri- 
otic enterprise, especially when carried on in Georgia. But, 
when peace had arrived, the plan for a high tariff did not find 
approval in the State. An editorial in the Georgia Journal 
in 1820 declared against protective duties and condemned 
domestic manufactures." The question, however, did not 
arouse much general interest until some years later, when the 
advocates of high tariff' became more successful in their 
cause. 

Many of the leading citizens of Georgia were strongl}" in 
favor of increasing the advantages of its people by a system 
of internal improvements in the shape of good roads, canals, 
etc. The first plan was to make these improvements at the 
expense of the State; but when the idea arose of national 
expenditures in these lines, the State mildly approved, and 
desired to have some of the improvements so placed that 
Georgia would derive advantage from them. The State 
rights advocates did not realize that internal improvements 
savored of paternalism until it became clear that that policy 
had become closely associated with the plan of protective 
duties. 

Governor Troup very strongly desired a complete svstem 
of canals or horse-power railroads throughout the State. ^ He 
urged the State legislature to appropriate money, and on June 
29, 1824, he wrote to the President of the United States that, 
since Congress had seen fit to pass an act authorizing the 
President to procure surveys and estimates for roads and 
canals, he felt it his duty to urge Georgia's claims for a share 
of the benefit, and to suggest a canal to connect the waters of 



a Georgia Journal, Feb. 1, 1820 & Harden, Life of Troup, p. 181. 



GEORGIA ATSTD STATE RIGHTS. 115 

the Savannah with those of the Tennessee, and one to connect 
the St. MaiTS with the Suwanee River in Florida.'^' 

Aside from the matter of the Creek lands, the subject of 
the African Colonization Society was the first to bring forth 
emphatic declarations from the Georgia legislature on the 
sovereignty of the States. At the time of its establishment 
the society had had the support of very many Southern 
people, but Avhen it adopted emtmcipation propaganda the 
Georgia leaders turned squarely against it. The legislature 
on December 27, 1827, adopted resolutions which began with 
gravely and firmly protesting against the right of Congress 
to appropriate money to aid the society, and from this start- 
ing point ranged into an ela)>orate exposition of the constitu- 
tional limitations of the General Government. They declared 
that it was only when the governor of Georgia, to oppose 
the threat of armed coercion by the President, "threw him- 
self upon the ramparts of the Constitution, there to sacri- 
fice himself in its defense, it was only then that the people 
of the South were roused from their fatal lethargy. It 
is only now that the people of the South begin deeply to 
feel that the preservation of their happiness and prosper- 
ity depend upon the preservation of that Constitution, as 
it came fi'om the hands of its makers — and feelingly to know 
that this can onl}' be eft'ected liy union among themselves, 
and by a firm determination and manly resistance to any 
attempts to merge these free and sovereign States into one 
grand, unlimited, consolidated government. The Federal 
compa(!t was a compact made between independent sovereign- 
ties for the general benefit and welfare of the whole, by which 
each, to effect that object, relinquished portions and like por- 
tions of its sovereign power, reserving to itself the residue, 
and by which all became mutual guarantees of each of the 
absolute and exclusive enjoyment of that residue. All the 
powers which could lie exercised by each in a way sufficiently 
beneficial and without clashing or interfering with the exer- 
cise of the same powers b}' the others were intended to be 
retained and were retained by the States in their separate 
capacities. It irresisti))ly follows that Congress can not, by 
implication, derive from that compact power to do any act 
which can interfere with the just and full exercise by the 

"Nilcs's Register, vol. 27, p. 12. 



116 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

States of powers which each can within itself exercise in a 
way sufficiently beneficial to itself. Such are the powers of 
each State to make roads and canals and regulate its slave 
population." Congress therefore has no power to appropri- 
ate money for internal improvements or to aid the colonization 
society.* 

A year later, on the subject of a controversy on slavery 
between South Carolina and Ohio, resolutions of the Georgia 
legislature declared that the States had an unquestionable 
right, in case of a breach of the general compact, to complain, 
I'emonstrate, and even to refuse obedience to any measure of 
the General Government manifestly violative of the Consti- 
tution.* The work of the Northern abolition societies was 
already beginning to add still another reason why Georgia 
should battle strongly in the particularist cause.'' 

The colonization society soon lost its prominent position; 
the project of Federal aid to better avenues of internal com- 
munication was slowly killed by the development of railroads 
for steam locomotion by private capital, frequently aided by 
the State governments; the Creek triljes of Indians disappeared 
from the public view; but there remained, in addition to the 
general question of slavery and the controversy over the 
Cherokee lands, the subject of the protective tariif, which 
from 1824 steadily grew more important as influencing the 
cotton States to place stronger emphasis upon the particular- 
istic theory until the crisis of nullification times was reached 
in 1833. 

The tariff of 1816 had been the first one possessing note- 
worthy protective features; those of 1820 and 1821 were suc- 
cessive advances along the line of protection, while in 1827 
Congress was considering a still higher rate of tariff. The 
report of a committee was adopted by the Georgia legislature 
in December, 1827, setting forth in a lengthy preamble an 
historical argument on the powers of the General Government 
and of the States. It declared in rather mild opposition to 
protection that ""Any law regulating commerce for its sole 
advantage, or for the purposes of revenue, which shall inci- 
dentally promote the interest of manufactures * * * [is 



'( Acts of Ga. Gen. Asseni., ]S27, ]>. U»l. U. S. House Kxvv. Doc. No. ]2t). I'Oth Cong., 1st 
sess., vol. 3. 
''Doc. 20, 1828; acts of Ga. Gen. Asscni., 1828, i>. 17t. 
'■ ("f. resolution of Ga. Leg., Dec. 19, 1829, acts of Ga. Gen. As.sem., 1829, p. 235. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 117 

coiistitutionalj, but the moment it loses sight of either of these 
objects [it becomes unconstitutional]. An increase of tariff 
duties will and ought to be resisted by all legal and constitu- 
tional means so as to avert the crying injustice of such an 
unconstitutional measure," It concluded by directing the 
report to be laid before Congress and before the legislatures 
of the other Southern States." 

The Congressional Representatives of Georgia were not back- 
ward in voicing the opinions of their constituents. But Mr. 
Gilmer, then a Congressman, complained that he found a sad 
apathy and stupidity in the lower House when the matter 
arose of interpreting the Constitution.'' 

The sections interested in protection, disregarding the oppo- 
sition of the South, pushed on their policy, and in May, 1828, 
enacted a new tariff law increasing the duties upon wool, 
hemp, and manufactures. There at once arose a great agita- 
tion in the cotton States to secure the repeal of the measure, 
which was felt to be very burdensome to the South and bene- 
ficial only to a rival section. South Carolina had alread}^ in 
1827 protested vigorously against protection, and had received 
some support from Georgia. From the spring of 1828 the 
people of Georgia took a more vivid interest in the cause. A 
great number of mass meetings were held throughout the 
State condemning the tariff;^' county grand juries made pre- 
sentments against it;'^ the students of the Universit}" of 
Georgia resolved to wear Geoi'gia homespun at the com- 
mencement in 1828, to show their hostility to the tariff,'' 
and the trustees of the institution commended their resolu- 
tion.-' A great meeting was held in the University chapel at 
Athens August 7, at which nearly all of the leading politicians 
of the State were present. Strong resolutions against the con- 
situtionality of the tariff' were adopted without opposition.''' 
Almost the only note of dissent to the general attitude of the 
State was an editorial in the Savannah Mercury protesting 
that since the tariff' had not had .such awful results as were 

"Dec. 24, 1827; acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1827, p. 203. cf. aLso Athenian (Athens, Ga.), 
Jan. 24. 1828. 
6 Speech in Congress, Mar. 7, 1828; Athenian, .Iinio :i, 1S28. 
c E. g. Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 64. 
rfE. g. Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 63. 
<" Georgia Journal, August, 1828. 

/Minutes of the Univ. of Ga. trustees, Aug. 7, 1828, MSS. 
(/Niles's Register, vol. 36, p. 14. 



118 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

predicted, all the excitement in the South hud very little 
justiticatiou/' 

Georgia was never so radical in its opposition to the tariff 
as was South Carolina. The message of Governor Forsyth 
on November 4, 1828, stated that the tariff act of 1828 had 
filled the whole Southern countr}^ with resentment and dismay. 
He noted the possibility of neutralizing the law by State ac- 
tion, but considered that it would be hardly wise or constitu- 
tional, at least until the usual method of seeking repeal had 
proved ineffectual.''' The legislature adopted a memorial to 
be sent to the States opposing the tariff, urging them to work 
for the repeal of the unconstitutional act, and exhorting each 
of these States, as a policy of self-preservation, to ward off 
its effects by living as far as possible upon its own products.** 
Many Georgians agreed with Mr. McDuffie, of South Caro- 
lina, that if driven to it ])y the tariff", the South could manu- 
facture its own articles of consuuiption. In the line of car- 
rying this theory into practice, the first cotton factory in 
Georgia was built at Athens in 1829 with local capital."' An- 
other larger factory was built at Athens in 1883,'' which re- 
mained in operation for many years. The smaller mill was 
burned in 1835, but was later rebuilt.' 

After 1828 the agitation against the tariff' died down for a 
few 3"ears, in Georgia. The legislature of 1829 was satisfied 
with directing the Georgia Congressmen to use their best 
efforts to o])tain the repeal of the act.f/ In 1830 the general 
assembly paid little attention to the tariff', but requested the 
Congressmen to vote against internal improvements as a sys- 
tem.^' It is clear that there was a period of comparative 
quiet in the State as regards the particularist struggle, from 
1829 to the beginning of 1832.' This was largely due to che 
confidence of the people in Andrew Jackson, whom they ex- 
pected to l)e a champion of the cause. 

The influence of Andrew Jackson upon Georgia politics is 



"Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 136. 
^Athenian, Nov. 18, 1828. 
■o Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1828, p. 173. 

rfGa. Journal, Apr. 3 and Apr. 10, 1830; Athenian, Fob. 2, 1830. 
e Augusta Constitutioiuilist, May 17, 1833; Ga. .Umrnal, Nov. 19, 1832. 
/Augu.sta Constitutionali.st, Mar. 31, 1835. 
f/ Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 182'.), p. 241. 

/'Dec. 29, 1830; U. S. House Exec. Docs. No. (;0, 20tli Cong., 1st sess., vol.3, cf.also T'.S. 
Exee. Docs., No. 91, 22d Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2. 
'■ Cf. editorial in Macon Messenger, June, 1830, quoted in Niles's Register, vol. ;w, p. ;>:}/. 



GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 119 

worthy of attentive study. In the Presidential contest of 
1820 Jackson and Crawford were the only candidates who 
had any following in Georgia. The local campaign, in so far 
as it involved any other than personal issues, was not unlike 
the campaign in the country' at large. It was a question of 
the continuance of the ''Virginia dynast}'" in the Govern- 
ment or the election of the popular hero who had arisen from 
the masses. The Troup party, aside from its personal attach- 
ment to Crawford, was, from its aristocratic composition, 
inclined to support such a man as he, who stood for the '' Cab- 
inet succession" to the Presidency. The local support of 
Jackson was not different from that in the other States in 
which the effort to gain control was made by the lower 
classes. 

Both Jackson and Crawford were defeated in the Presiden- 
tial contest. Crawford soon disappeared from the national 
arena. Henry Clay cast his lot with the Administration of 
Adams, and Adams became so distasteful to the Georgia poli- 
ticians that they were prepared to give the most loyal and 
undivided support to the opposition candidate for the election 
of 1828. In the popular conception Jackson fflled all possible 
requirements for the candidacy. As early as December, 
1826, a resolution was adopted by the Georgia legislature and 
signed by Governor Troup, stating that the people of Geor- 
gia looked with confidence to the election of Andrew Jackson 
to the Presidency. On December 21, 1827, QS members of the 
State senate, out of a total of 09 voting, declaied their prefer- 
ence for Jackson, and only one member could be found in 
favor of Adams." During the next year each local part}" 
tried to outshine the other in its support of Jackson. Inde- 
pendent tickets of electors were put into the field by each 
party, but every candidate upon each ticket was pledged to 
vote for Jackson and Calhoun, as President and Vice-President. 

The principal issue which cauvsed the unanimity was that of 
the Indian lands. Upon this issue we have seen in a former 
chapter that Jackson as President faithfully carried out the 
expectations of the Georgians. So long as that issue was a 
vital one, both of the local parties remained steadfast in his 
support, notwithstanding the occurrence of disconcerting- 
developments in other matters. The anti-Masonic movement 

ti Savannah Republican, Jan. 19, 1828. 



120 AMEETC'AN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

at the North in 1829 was; reg-arded in Georgia as merely an 
electioneering scheme in Claj'As favor, and was given no 
approval.'^ The tariff and internal improvements were of 
secondary consideration for the time being. The unpleasant- 
ness between eTackson and Calhoun and the withdrawal of 
Berrien from the Cabinet on account of the Eaton affair, 
caused not a waver in the steady devotion of the great major- 
ity of Georgians to their champion. The State senate resolved 
unanimously in November, 1831, that it favored the reelection 
of Jackson, and opposed the election of Calhoun as President 
or as Vice-President.^ 

The election of 1832 took place in a period of tension in 
the Cherokee controversy. Jackson was sturdily upholding 
the contentions of Georgia. It is not surprising that the 
nomination of two independent tickets pledged to his support 
was again a feature of the local campaign, and that hardly a 
voice within the State was heard to praise the candidacy of 
Mr. Clay. 

But influences were at work which were to break this accord 
as soon as the Cherokee question should subside. Jackson 
and the Georgia leaders were too autocratic in temperament 
to remain in perpetual harmony without complete identity of 
interests and points of view. The local parties were inclined 
to disagree wherever possible; and the disturbing develop- 
ments of the time were already furnishing much ground for 
discussion. The outcome was to be the merging, in the fol- 
lowing period, of the local parties respectivel}^ with the two 
national parties which were then beginning to differentiate. 

Since 1828 the Southern representatives in Congress had 
struggled for lower duties on imports, but had fought against 
overpowering numbers. General Jackson had been looked to 
as a leading opponent of the protective tariff"; but his message 
of 1830 approved of the principle and suggested the expendi- 
ture of the surplus revenue in internal improvements. The 
tariff act of July 14, 1832, gave no relief to the South, but 
established protection as a fixed policy of the Government. 
The people of Georgia felt very much injured by the act; 
but his loyalty to the cause of their State in the Cherokee 
dispute prevented their losing faith in the President. 

Early in 1831 the doctrine of nullification in its then uncrys- 

" Athenian, Sept. 1,1829. hNiles's Register, vol. 41, p. 272. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 121 

tallized form had begun to enter the view of the Georgia 
politicians; but the doctrine probably did not obtain serious 
consideration by any great number of the citizens before the 
beginning of the next year." From that time forth it was the 
subject of much thought and discussion in the State. Except 
by a few extremists, nullification was considered to be too 
radical. But the popular discontent aroused by the tariff 
act of July 1832, and the evident determination of South 
Carolina to test her power against the tariff, in the capacity 
of a sovereign State, led to a very thorough consideration of 
the existing status. 

The leaders of political thought in Georgia, after studying 
nullification in its relations to the several constitutional 
theories already before the country, reached in most cases a 
substantial agreement, and in the end, as will appear below, 
carried a large majorit}^ of the people with them. 

The doctrine of State rights had no set formula for all time; 
but being a method of interpreting conditions and relations, 
it was subject to varying exposition by different philosophers 
and in different epochs. 

The men of Georgia were not given to formulating intricate 
theories unless they were to serve concrete and immediate 
ends. In the matter of the Creek lands the chief question 
was of the right and power of the State to require the Central 
Government to carry out the terms of the bargain which it had 
made with the State government. In the Cherokee contro- 
versy the chief issue was upon the jurisdiction over the dis- 
puted territory. On the part of the Georgians there was a 
distinct wish to restrict the discussion in these cases to the 
immediate issue, and not to go far afield in generalizations. 
The sovereign rights of the State were frequently referred to, 
but were not expounded at length, for the reason that they 
were hardly in question. Even John Quincy Adams spoke 
as a matter of course of the authority and dignity of the 
sovereign States of the Union. 

The principle of close construction of the Constitution was 
held by practically all Georgians at all times from the adop- 
tion of the instrument. This meant simpl}' that the Consti- 
tution limited the Central Government and reserved to the 
several States all powers not expressly delegated. When 

"cf. Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 21, 1831. 



122 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". 

exigencies arose in which more radical theories would be use- 
ful there was no difficulty in formulating them and securing 
their local adoption. Conservative particularism was univer- 
sal in Georgia. The advance to radical particularism was a 
matter of expediency and not of principle. 

As long as the South could make any effective opposition 
in Congress to the protective tariff the ballot box was trusted 
to secure the observance of the fundamental law. But as 
soon as the majority showed its determination to override the 
Southern opposition and disregard Southern interests, the cry 
of unconstitutionality was raised. The wording of the Con- 
stitution made it necessary for the argument showing the 
unconstitutionality of protective duties to be of such extreme 
nicety that to sustain the contention the party of protest was 
driven from conservative ground. The condition of expe- 
diency having arisen, none of the local politicians and few of 
the rank and file balked at the advance from moderate to rad- 
ical particularism — from the advocacy of State rights to that 
of State sovereignty. 

Whert^as the doctrine of State rights emphasized the powers 
reserved to the States in the terms of the Federal Constitution 
as the fundamental law, the theory of State sovereignty laid 
heaviest stress upon the independence and the sovereign char- 
acter of the original States before they formed the Union or 
adopted the Constitution, and upon their continued sovereignty 
as members of the Union or Federation. The pivotal question 
was no longer as to what interpretation the Constitution was 
to receive, but as to where lay the proper authority to give to 
the instrument its official and final construction. From the 
premise of the sovereignty of the States meeting in conven- 
tion in 1787 and establishing a Federal Government in 1789, 
it was argued that the States created the Central Government 
as their agent for the performance of certain specified func- 
tions and with certain delegated powers; that the agent, being- 
subordinate to the sovereignties which created it, had no 
power to enlarge its own authority, and in the event of an 
attempt to assert such power it might })e checked by the 
sovereign States or any of them. 

A conservative wing of the State sovereignty theorists con- 
ceded to the Central Government the rights of sovereignty in 
its own sphere, which should not interfere with the soveignty 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 128 

of the States in their own spheres. In the event of a conflict 
of authority, the power of deciding as to the limitation of the 
spheres did not lie either in the State governments or in the 
Central Government; but unless the difliculty could be settled 
l\v mutual concession, recourse must be had to constitutional 
amendment. This doctrine did not of necessity rest upon a 
theory of divided sovereignty. The argument was, of course, 
that the people of the States were sovereign, and the people 
alone; that the people had delegated certain powers of sov- 
ereignt}" to the Central Governinent, and had continued the 
State governments in the exercise of other powers of sov- 
ereignty which were the residue of those powers with which 
these governments had been intrusted at a former time. 

The latter oi' moderate State sovereignty doctrine was some- 
what the moi-e popular one in Georgia where the tariff issue 
had led the people to abandon distinctl}" conservative ground. 
But the difference between the moderate and the advanced 
doctrines of State sovereignty was so slight that all but the 
most acute and consistent thinkers were likely to shift from 
one to the other unconsciously. 

Nullification was simply the radical doctrine of State sover- 
eignty plus a formula for its specific application. The nulli- 
tiers had set to work to find an eflScient means of overthrowing 
the protective tarifl'. They reasoned out the sovereignty of 
the States and the subordinate character of the Central Gov- 
ernment. With this preparation for the concrete question at 
hand, they declared, as did all State sovereignty adherents, 
that Congress had exceeded its powers, and that the United 
States Supreme Court, being a part of the Central Govern- 
ment, which was itself nothing more than an agent, had no 
authority whatever to judge of the powers of the agent, but 
that the only authority for such judgment lay in the sover- 
eign States. The nullifiers then proceeded to show how this 
authority could ])e exercised. 

The machinery as described by Calhoun was not complex. 
A State by virtue of its sovereignty could declare the nullity 
of an unconstitutional act of Congress and prohibit its exe- 
cution within the limits of that State. This prohibition was 
of absolute finalty as against any further power of the Central 
government acting in isolation. But Congress had one last 
recourse. It might submit to the States a constitutional amend- 



124 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

raent expressly justifying its own view of its powers. If the 
amendment should fail of adoption, Congress must concede 
that its interpretation of its authority was not according to 
the will of the sovereign and nuist repeal the act in question. 
In the event of the ratification of the amendment by three- 
fourths of the States and its incorporation into the Constitu- 
tion itself, the protesting State would be overruled and would 
have to submit or withdraw from the Union" 

South Carolina adopted and applied the expedient of nulli- 
fication. Concerning the measures taken by the South Caro- 
lina convention and legislature, most of the Georgia leaders 
thought their underlying principle to be sound, but considered 
the interposition of the sovereignty of the State to be inex- 
pedient without further remonstrance and without joint 
action by all of the aggrieved States. 

To study the internal history of nullification in Georgia 
and its effect upon local politics, we must return to the begin- 
ning of the year 1831, when the doctrine first began to be 
taken seriously in the State. Before that time the idea of a 
State veto had been entirely theoretical, and nullification had 
been a hazy conception without any distinguished champion. 

It was in March, 1831, that the editor of the Georgia 
Journal discovered that Mr. Calhoun was at the head of the 
nullification movement, which was in the line of his own views 
as a Troup or State Rights partisan. The discovery bade fair 
to disarrange existing alignments. Crawford and others 
opposed to Calhoun, it was thought, must change to the 
Clarke or Union ahgnment. This would bring on an exten- 
sive reorganization. The conclusion of the editor was: "We 
reckon we had l^etter wipe all out and begin afresh."^ 

The iinticipations of the editor were not fully realized. 
Crawford had lost his position of consequence in the State. 
Andrew Jackson was in complete control of Georgia politics. 
The new doctrine was not to obtain speedy acceptance, nor at 
once to disconcert parties very seriously. 

The guliernatorial contest of 1831 was of distinct interest 
as regards practical workings and as regards political theories. 
The earliest candidates to be announced were George R. Gil- 
mer and Thomas Haynes, both of whom were members of the 

" ('ollection of documents on nnllilicution in Calhoun's Works, vol. 6. 
/'Ga. Journal, Mar. 17, 1831. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 125 

State Rights party. This promised the Clarke or Union 
leaders a chance to profit by the division of support. 

The opponents of Troup and his successors had for some 
years been without a prominent leader, and without efficient 
organization. In 1S30 an opportunity was given them to 
develop a party machine. The University of Georgia was in 
need of funds with which to rebuild a burned dormitory and 
to erect additional buildings. The board of trustees was filled 
with conspicuous Tioup men, and could obtain no appro- 
priations from the Clarke majority in the legislature. The 
problem was solved by doubling the number of the trustees 
by the addition of a group of Clarke leaders. The legislature 
was at once amenable and made adequate appropriations to 
the University. 

The trustees of the university had formerly acted as the 
executive committee of the Troup party. After 1830 it com- 
prised the executive conmiittee of each party. At the time 
of each meeting of the board, there would be held in Athens 
two caucuses, made up of the partisans on the board together 
with other visiting members of the respective cliques. The 
first caucus of the Union party was held at Athens in May, 
1831. The result of its deliberations was the announcement 
of Wilson Lumpkin as a candidate for the governors chair." 

The principles and attitude of Mr. Lumpkin, who was thus 
put forward by the Union party to oppose Gilmer and Haynes 
in 1831, illustrate the unsettled and transitional condition of 
politics in the State. Lumpkin in his own memoirs giv^es 
evidence of his having been at the time of his candidacy a 
State rights man, and yet an advocate of moderate Union 
principles; an opponent of nullification (though not at that 
time pronounced, as contemporary material shows) and yet a 
friend and in other matters a political ally of Calhoun. When 
Lumpkin first entered politics in 1812 he received support 
from the Clarke party, and always thereafter kept faith with 
his colleagues in that organization. He was while in Con- 
gress a member of the opposition to Crawford at the time of 
the attempt to nominate him over Monroe in 1810; and as a 
member of the State legislature in 1821, he influenced most of 
the Clarke representatives to vote for Jackson as opposed to 
Crawford in the Presidential contest. But for the five 3^ears 



"Augusta Constitutionalist, June 24, 1831. 



126 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

preceding' 1831 Lumpkin liad been in Congre.ss uphiolding 
the contentions of Georgia, in a way satisfactory to all his 
constituents, while State politics had been so temperate that 
the Troup party, forgetting his past opposition and knowing- 
his State rights inclinations,^' claimed him as an adherent. 

Lumpkin's candidacy was at first a puzzle to the partisan 
editors. The State Rights papers thought him a third candi- 
date of their own party and deplored the threatening disrup- 
tion of the organization.* After a time it was made clear 
that he would be supported by the former adherents of Clarke. 
Then the uncertainty of his attitude toward nullification 
formed a topic for discussion, but the general opinion was 
that that doctrine had not grown to be of fundamental impor- 
tance. 

In August, 1831, it became evident that the Union party 
was solid for Lumpkin and that tlie State Rights party was 
divided between Gilmer and Haynes. At the University 
commencement in that month the State Rights caucus tried to 
bring down either Gilmer or Haynes from the candidacy.^ 
Persuaded by the part}" press, Haynes withdrew in Septem- 
ber,'^' and the contest lay between Gilmer and Lumpkin, the 
rival champions. 

The supporters of Gilmer were anxious to have it believed 
that their candidate was more certain than any other one to 
defend the rights of the State. At a Fourth of Jn\y dinner 
held by them at Milledgeville, Troup and Gilmer and Andrew 
Jackson were toasted, and Clay and the tariii' condemned. 
Governor Gilmer responded in a spirited toast to the rights 
of the States and declared his own devotion to the cause." 

The friends of Lumpkin asserted that their candidate was 
as loyal as anyone to the legitimate rights of the State. They 
sought to damage Gilmer's popularit}^ by a reference to his 
opposition to distributing the lands in the gold-mining dis- 
trict among the citizens of the State by the land lottery, thence 
arguing that he had not the interests of the common people at 

a Savannah Republican, Jan. 10, 1828; see for public letter of Lumpkin stating his 
conservative support of State rights. 
''Ibid., May 31, 1831; Athenian, .June 11, 1831. 
"•Augusta Constiuitionalist, Aug. 12, 1831. 
rf Ibid., Sept. 13, 1831. 
«' Savannah Republican, .luly 12, 1831. 



Historical Report, 1901- Phillips 



Plate VI 




MAP OF GE O RGI A I N 1 8 3 1 

showing local majorilies in thevote cast in the gubernatorial 
election of that year 

GEORGE K.GILMKR. MAJORITY WILSON LUMPKIN . MA J ORl'lT 

THE CANDIDATKOFTHKTHOUPPAI-JTY THK GiKNDIDATE OF THE CLARKE PvUlT' 

[t:;^ 50 to t>0 per cent of tlie total vote | | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote 

^p 60 „ 75 CU ^'^'^ ■■ "5 

Ill over 75 , „ I I ovei-75 „ „ „ „ 

■■■ above 90 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 127 

heart." The outcome of the contest was the election of Lump- 
kin as governor, but in the legislature elected at the same time 
the State Rights party secured the greater number of seats. 

The location of majorities in 1831, as shown by a map made 
according to the returns of the gubernatorial election, was 
strikingly like that in 1825. No conspicuous change occurred 
anywhere. As for the newly settled area, most of it went for 
Lumpkin, as might have been expected; })ut where the land 
was particularly fertile or the population decidedl}^ high 
toned, Gilmer carried the county.^ Corroboration of this lies 
in the comparatively large number of slaves in the Gilmer 
counties of the west, and in contemporary agricultural criti- 
cisms.^' This similarity, we may almost say identity, of local 
situation demonstrates that the lines of cleavage continued to 
depend upon economic and social conditions, and had little 
connection with questions of public policy. In fact, the partj^ 
leaders, innnediatoly after the contest, underestimating the 
importance of nidlitication and its developments, prophesied 
that the only points of difierence between the local parties for 
the next few years would lie regarding the choice of the next 
Vice-President and of a successor to President Jackson at the 
expiration of his second term, a contingency then five years in 
the future.'' 

The editor of Niles's Register, in noting political events in 
Georgia from 1819 as far as 1833, hardly ever failed to protest 
at the conclusion of each article that it was impossible to 
understand Georgia yiolitics and he could make no pretense 
of doing so. The editor was wise in his resolution to refrain 
from the attempt at exposition, for hardly anyone but a mem- 
ber of one of the Georgia cliques could have explained the 
anomalous conditions in the State. 

The parties in Georgia had a certain intangibility resulting 
from the obscurity in their manipulations. Each was con- 
trolled by a ring which transacted business in caucuses and 
kept no minutes. The responsibility for any single measure 
could rarel}" be traced to any single originator or champion. 

"Augusta Constitutionalist, Sept. 27, 1831. 
''Of. ibid., Sept. 12, 1835. 

<■ Ibid., Feb. 3, 1835. cf. also Chappell's Mi.scelliinie.s of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 22. See also 
map herewith sliowing products of counties. 
'' .■Vugusta Chronicle, Feb. 1, 1832. 



128 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

The party newspapers as a rule did not adopt any one line of 
argument for a campaign and consistently" hammer away at it, 
but they supplemented their meager editorials b}^ opening 
their columns to their political friends who would contribute 
articles over pseudonyms. If attacks were made in these 
articles upon the policy or political reputation of an opposing 
candidate, it was not customary for the candidate to make 
personal reply, but he or his friends would write anonymous 
articles in defense or in counter attack and publish them in the 
organs of their own party. Thus the personal element in the 
situation is largel}^ concealed from the historical student, while 
the evidence remains that personal influence was a very 
essential factor in the progress of events. 

The local parties themselves were not fully conscious of 
their complete dependence upon economic, social, and per- 
sonal aflinities and diflerences. The adoption of the names 
State Rights and Union was a manifestation of their desire to 
establish points of difference of a distinctly political character. 
It was not until after much argument and important develop- 
ments that genuine opposing policies of any kind were adopted 
by the parties as units. 

The unanimity of the people upon external questions before 
them in 1831 was indicated by the unanimous adoption by the 
State senate in November of resolutions expressing its wish 
for General Jackson's reelection. The resolutions admitted 
that "recent events [e. g., those in Tassel's case] have been 
hailed in some of our sister States as a proof of the triumph 
here of J. C. Calhoun and his principles over the President, 
his friends, and his principles," but declared, "the great body 
of the people of this State have no feeling in common with the 
pretentions or with many of the principles of Mr. Calhoun, 
and especially those contained in his late address to the people 
of the United States on the subject of nullification."^' 

Within the next year the unanimity disappeared. The 
heated debate in Congress upon the revi^sion of the tariff 
brought on an agitation in Georgia which failed of being super- 
heated at an early stage only l)ecause everyone at first thought 
very nearly alike and no local dispute could l)e aroused. The 
Georgia Congressmen fought with might and main against the 
tariff. When they were ovc^rpowered by the final vote in July 

"Niles's Register, vol. II, p. 272. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 129 

one or two of them accepted the finality of the result with only 
a mild protest. The others did not give up the battle, but 
shifted the scene of their activity to the popular forum. 

The people welcomed their returning- representatives at the 
close of the session as heroes who had made a good tight in 
a worthy cause. The politicians in attendance upon the 
University of Georgia commencement, in August, arranged a 
public meeting for the consideration of the tariff and the 
grievances which it brought. The result was the adoption by 
the meeting of recommendations to the several counties of the 
State for the election of delegates to a convention to be held 
at Milledgeville in November. The purpose of the conv'en- 
tion was to decide upon the course which Georgia should fol- 
low to secure the preservation of her rights. Mr. John M, 
Berrien and Judge A. S. (Clayton were the leading spirits in 
the meeting and were appointed as the leading members of a 
standing conunittee of correspondence for the furtherance of 
the anti-tariff cause." 

Within the same month a great pul)lic dinner was arranged 
by the citizens of Oglethorpe Gounty in honor of the Stat(> 
Rights congressmen from Georgia. In the political speech- 
making which followed the dinner, Mr. Berrien pleaded for 
the organization of the people against the tariff'. He made a 
ringing appeal for the defense of the sovereign and inalienable 
rights of the States, and for the ol)servance of the pledge 
containecl in the protest of the Georgia legislature of 182S. 
Judge Clayton had recently distinguisht^d himself as a nulli- 
tier in Congress. He now declared that the last hope of 
mitigation from the oppressors of the South was extinguished; 
that self-redress was the only recourse remaining: that the 
time was come to strike for liberty.'' 

The listeners gave their heartiest applause to the most 
radical sentiments. They unanimously declared that the}^ 
would not submit to the tariff", and that the}' would help to 
defend any State against coercion by the central government. 
And yet a resolution was adopted, with only a few dissenting 
voices, W'hich averred unshaken confidence in the patriotism 
of Andrew Jackson. The meeting appointed a committee of 



as. F. Miller, Bench and Bar of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 29. 
''N'iles's Register, vol. 43, p. 9. 



H. Doc. 702, pt. 2- 



130 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

correspondence, and seconded the call of the Athens meeting 
for the convention at Milledgeville. 

Meeting's were held in nearly every county to consider the 
problems before the country. A very poor cotton and corn 
crop increased the sense of hardship. The meetings were 
largely controlled by the radical element. Most of them 
chose delegates for the convention at Milledgeville, and 
instructed them of the wish of the county for radical action 
or for conservatism, as the case might be. 

The convention met in the capitol on November 13, 183:2. 
Of the eighty counties in the State, sixty-one were represented 
by a hundred and thirty-four delegates. Ex-Governor Gil- 
mer was -made president of the convention. At an early stage 
in the sessions Ex-Governor Forsyth moved the appointment 
of a committee on credentials. An acrimonious debate ensued, 
in which Messrj^. Berrien and Clayton opposed Mr. Forsyth, 
who was the leader of the conservatives. Upon the rejection 
of his motion, Mr. Forsyth led a secession of fifty-three con- 
servatives from the hall, and presented a protest denying the 
legitimacy of the convention. After the withdrawal of the 
dissentients the convention adopted a long series of resolu- 
tions, the doctrinal points in which approached very near to 
nuUitieation. It declared the determined opposition of the 
people of Georgia to the protective tariff, and stated their 
resolution to resist the principle by the exercise of all their 
rights as one of the sovereign States of the confederacy and 
by concert with such other States as had kindred interests. 
The convention resolved that definite resistance should be 
postponed in order that Congress and the manufacturing- 
States might have time to reconsider their oppressive polic3% 
and it made arrangements for calling a convention of the 
Southern States, provided the action of the convention should 
be approved by the ballots of the people of Georgia. '^ The 
convention adjourned on November 17. 

That all of the proceedings of the convention did not lind 
undivided approval in the State Avas quickly shown by the 
action of the legislature. On November 20 a set of resolu- 
tions was introduced into the house of representatives as a 
conservative measure to counteract the radical propaganda 
of the convention. It expressed discontent with the tariff 

i- Georgia .lournal, Nov. and Dec, 1832. Niles's Register, vol. 4:5, pp. 220 and 230. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 181 

law, but disapproved of the resolutions adopted b}- the late 
convention, which it said was composed of delegates of a 
minority of the people, and stated it to be the duty of the 
legislature to tranquilize the public mind. It embodied a 
scheme for calling a Southern convention, in the event of the 
approval of the plan l)y a majority of the citizens of the State 
at the time of the election of county officers in January.*^ 
These resolutions were adopted in the house by a vote of 97 
to 57 and in the senate b}' 48 to 28. An additional resolution 
was adopted with a similar majority, which expressly repu- 
diated the doctrine of nullification as being neither a peaceful 
nor a constitutional remedy, and warned the people of Georgia 
against adopting South Carolina's mischievous policy.'' 

The legislature seems to have had an afterthought that its 
resolutions were too pacitic and submissive. On Deceml)er 24 
it resolved "That this general assembly does expressly^ declare 
that the Government of the United States does not possess the 
power under the Gonstitution to carry on a system of internal 
improvement within the several States oi- to appropriate 
mone}' to be expended upon such improvement."' By the 
tenor of this resolution the legislature did not pretend to be 
a court with final authority of interpretation, but it mereh^ 
saw fit to express its positive opinion as a })ody which had as 
much right as any other existing oiie to interpret the Consti- 
tution, This was in accordance with the moderate doctrine 
of State sovereignty, which was the doctrine at this time ac- 
cepted by the majority of the people of Georgia. 

The moderate State sovereignty doctrine necessarily de- 
pended upon a federal constitutional convention as the final 
resort in embarrassing circumstances. The Georgia legis- 
lature accoi-dingly, in December, 1832, applied to Congress 
for the call of a federal convention to amend the Constitution 
in numerous details: To define more distinctly the powers of 
the General Government and those reserved to the States: to 
define the power in the General Government of coercion over 
the States, and in the States to resist an unconstitutional act: 
to settle the principle of the protective tariff; to establish a 
system of taxation which would bear equally upon all sections: 
to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; to establish 



oNiles's Register, vol. 43, p. 279. 

ft Dec. 14, 1832; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 245, Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 280. 

c-Dec. 24, 1832; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 261. 



18^ AMERICAN HISTURICAL ASSOCIATION. 

a tril)unal of last resort in disputes between the States and the 
General Govei-nment; to decide upon the constitutionality of 
the United States Bank and of internal improvements; to direct 
the disposition of the surplus revenue and of the public lands; 
to secure the election of President and Vice-President in all 
cases to the people and to limit their tenure of ofiice to one 
term; and to settle the question of the rights of the Indians/' 
Such a convention was never called, and the desired amend- 
ments were never made. Having- applied for the calling- of a 
convention, the majority of the people of Georgia considered 
that they had done all that was required by the circumstances; 
and the legislature passed few more resolutions upon federal 
relations before 1850, The compromise tariff of 1833 closed 
the contest over the single issue of protection, but the threat 
of Jackson to coerce South Carolina roused antagonism in the 
South, and was more powerful than Calhoun's arguments in 
fostering nullitication in Georgia: se\ eral 3'ears more were 
required for the dispute to die awa}-. 

The result of the agitation in the fall of 1832 and of the 
conflicting action of the convention and the legislature in 
November and December was a complication in local politics. 
A segment of the State Rights part}^ adopted nullitication, and 
was joined by bolters from the Union part3^* Another sec- 
tion of the State Rights party, numbering about 5,000 of the 
30,000 voters in the party at the last election, deserted their 
confreres to join the Union party. The names of Troup and 
Clarke were revived to distinguish between the two divisions 
of the new Union party. The remainder of the State Rights 
party, all of the nuUitiers, and a few bolters from the Union 
party united for practical purposes under the banner of State 
Rights.^ For the next four or five years Nullitication, State 
Rights, Troup Union, and Clarke Union factions constituted 
the political alignment, the two former and the two latter 
groups voting respectively in combination, but struggling to 
obtain the nominations in their respective parties for men of 
their own coterie.'^' 

Nullitication, first conspicuous in 1831, possessed consider- 
able strength in Georgia at the end of 1832, and continued to 

"Dec. 22. 1832; acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 2-J9. U. S. House Ex. Doc. No. 92, 22d 
Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2. 
''Augusta Chronicle, Aug. 2o, 1832. 
'■ Georgia Journal, Aug. 21, 1833. 
rflbid., Sept. 17, 1834. 



GEORGIA AND STA PE RIGHTS. 138 

gain supporters until 1834, after which it rapidly declined. 
Apparentl}" it could at no time muster a majority of the State 
Rights part}^, which itself during- these years was outnum- 
bered by the Union party; so the nullifiers were never able to 
count a fourth of the voting population of Georgia. The 
doctrine had numerous supporters of a violent type, making 
more noise than comported with their number. Their efforts 
were strenuous but unavailing to bring the mass of the people 
or the most trusted leaders to approve the practice according 
to Calhoun's formula. 

Judge A. S. Clayton was the only Georgian of decided 
prominence who was an outright nullifier. Judge Clayton 
did not differ from the typical Georgia hotspur except in the 
radical degree to which he carried his doctrines. He was 
thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of extreme partic- 
ularism, and showed his consistency and his devotion to 
the cause by his defiance of the federal Supreme Court in 
Worcester's case"^' and by his bold attacks upon the bank 
and the tariff" in Congress, as well as by his energy as a popular 
agitator for nullitication. He was the chief owner in 1832 
of the only cotton factory in Georgia; but he declared in 
Congress that, so far from leading him to favor protection, the 
knowledge of his own surprising pi'otits from manufacturing 
served to clear his vision to the enormity of the tariff's oppres- 
sion upon the planters/' 

Mr. Berrien was an advocate of the advanced doctrine of 
State sovereignty, but he did not openly declare for nullifi- 
cation. As expressing the will of his State, he had delivered 
in the United States Senate in 1829 a striking!}^ eloquent 
defense of State sovereignty^ in his attack upon the constitu- 
tionality of the tariff'.^ As a member of Jackson's Cabinet 
from 1829 to 1831 he had been in harmony with the Admin- 
istration, and was content to await developments. But the 
tariff' act of 1832, following his resignation from the Cabinet 
in 1831, caused him to take up the cudgels again for extreme 
State sovereignt3^ The name of nullification had an unpleas- 
ant sound to man}^ of the common people who did not study 
constitutional theories. His knowledge of the unpopularity 

" Infra, p. 80. 

b June 14, 1832; Niles's Register, vol. 42, p. 325. Register of Debates, 1831-32, p. 3850. 

'• Register of Debates in Congress, 1828-29, p. 22. 



134 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

of this term was probably responsible for Mr. Berrien's failure 
to champion Calhoun's plan of a State veto. We shall have 
occasion in another chapter to observe that in the following- 
decade Mr. Berrien, as a member of the V\'^hio- i:)arty, veered 
in his policy so far as to advocate a moderate protective 
tariff. His very great ability as a constitutional lawyer and 
his force as an orator made him a powerful chariipion of any 
cause which he adopted. 

Mr. Gilmer was an advocate of State sovereig-ntj^, but was 
not a nullitier. In the anti-tariff' convention he had moved the 
omission of one of the resolutions which contained a statement 
of doctrine very similar to nullification." Upon the failure 
of his amendment, he gave his approval to the whole set of 
resolutions adopted by the convention, of which he was presi- 
dent. The strength of his State sovereignty convictions may 
be gathered from his executive policy toward the Cherokees, 
as set forth in the preceding chapter. 

Mr. Forsyth was strongly opposed to any agitation on the 
ground of State sovereigiit}". He was in close touch with the 
President, and believed that matters would right themselves 
if time were given. Mr. Forsyth had been a leader of the 
Troup party in former years, but his distinct Union senti- 
ments caused his separation from his former colleagues after 
1832. His engrossing concern with international affairs led 
to his alienation from local politics. As Secretary of State 
from 1834 to his death in 1841, he remained in steady support 
of Jackson and Van Buren, while the State Rights party in 
Georgia drifted into the Whig party at large. 

Mr. W. H. Crawford was habitually opposed to anything 
which Mr. Calhoun favored. He advised the calling of a 
constitutional convention as preferable to nullitication or 
secession, either of which he thought would bring on war. 
If separation must be the ffnal resort, he said, it would be 
well to learn how strong a Southern confederacy could be 
formed. On the whole it would be better to submit to the 
tariff' than to form a dependent connection with any foreign 
state.'' 

Mr. Trou}), upon being questioned, expounded State sover- 
eignty as being above and having nothing to do with the Con- 
stitution. The United States Government being a mere agent, 



(iNiles's Register, vol. 43, p. 222. 

'' Letter of Crawford. Sept. 13, 18.32, Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 185. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 135 

he held that South Carolina had a rig-ht to do what she had 
done. Yet he blamed that State for not acting- in concert 
with the other Southern States, and expressed his belief that 
if she had done so, ''a certain and complete triumph of the 
Constitution [i. e., as limiting- the Central Government] would 
have been the result."'* 

Governor Lumpkin's position was not different from that 
of Mr. Troup. Referring- to the tariff in his annual message 
of 1832, he said: '^ Intolera])le assumptions and usurpations 
* * * must be checked b}^ some means; and the power to 
accomplish this end must unquestionably lie in the respective 
sovereignties."" Yet he went on to say that it would have 
been at least the part of courtesy for South Carolina to have 
waited for joint action by the aggrieved States, and expressed 
his opinion that by conservative measures the existing un- 
pleasant status might have been avoided.* Within the next 
year, Lumpkin expressed an increasing disrelish of nullifica- 
tion; but he did not hint at forsaking the doctrine of the 
sovereignty of the States. 

The substantial agreement of Troup and Gilmer with 
Lumpkin upon doctrinal points shows that there was no ade- 
quate justification for the use of the names State Rights and 
Union by the respective parties. The Clarke or Union ma- 
jority in the legislature of 1830 had stood squarely with Gov- 
ernor Gilmer when he refused to submit to the interference 
of the United States Supreme Court in Tassel's case. In the 
cases of Worcester and Butler and Graves. Governor Lump- 
kin continued Mr. Gilmer's policy without any noticeable 
modification. The State Rights party in 1832 did not allow 
the nullifiers to control it, and though its leaders, of course, 
approved the principle of the right of secession by a sover- 
eign State, they did not advocate secession as a remedy for 
their existing wrongs. On the other hand, the Union party 
angrily resented the sobriquet of '""submissionists" which their 
opponents sought to attach to them. Finally, it was the 
Unionist Lumpkin who, with the approval of both local par- 
ties, but in contravention of all precedent and in defiance 
of the dictum of the Supreme Court, declared the unceded 
Cherokee lands to be open for settlement. 

' a Letter of Troup, Sept. 25, 1834, Harden's Life of Troup, p. rv2'2, and letter of Troup 
Feb. 10, 1833, ibid., appendix p. 1. 
?>Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 207. 



13(5 AMERICAN HISTORI(!AL ASSiKU ATION. 

During' 18?>8 an effort was made with some success to brin^ 
the Union party to adopt a distinct!}- union policy. The 
meeting' of a State constitutional convention in May afforded 
the occasion for a conference of Union party men from all 
sections. The conference adopted resolutions approving the 
Virginia resolutions of 1T1>0 as detining the powers of the 
Government, condemning the doctrine of nullification, pro- 
testing against protective duties, and approving the adminis- 
tration of Andrew Jackson." 

Two days later the members of the State Rights party in 
the convention held a meeting. They adojjted no formal 
resolutions, but nominated Joel Crawford to oppose Wilson 
Lumpkin in the gubernatorial contest.'' Lumpkin was then an 
avowed enemy of nullification, while Crawford refused to 
commit himself.' 

The presence of the luillifiers within the State Rights party 
tended rather to weaken that party than to strengthen it. A 
large number of vot«M's in the old Troup party feared the influ- 
ence of the radical doctrine to such an extent that they left 
their usual alignment simply to oppose what they thought to 
)>e political heresy.'' Lumpkin obtained a decisive victory in 
the large majority, as then considered, of abov(^ 2.0i)() votes. '^ 

The returns for the northwestern part of the State in 1833 
are interesting in that they show for several of the newh' 
organized and partially settled counties a Troup or State 
Rights majority. This affords strong evidenc(> that the men 
of the oldest sections of the State were no less eager than the 
frontiersmen to obtain the Cherokee lands. The lands in the 
eastern part of (Tcorgiawore largely worn out l)v tiie exhaust- 
ing system of cultivation in practice at the time. Cotton and 
corn were the only conunodities produced in large (|uantities, 
while both of these were '•clean" crops, exposing the soil to the 
weather and diminishing its fertility. Coimuercial fertilizers 
were unknown, and the planter's only recourse was to al)an- 
don his fields, at least temporarily, after some years of culti- 
A'ation.' For these reasons several of the older counties in 
middle Georgia lost nearly half their popidation through the 



I' Niles's Register, vol. -J4, ]>. 2o.S. 

''Ibid., vol.44, p. 224. 

'■ Augusta Chronit'le, ,Tuly IH, 1833. 

dGa. .lournal, Aug. 21, 1833. 

<■ Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. IS, 1833. 

/M. B. Haniniond, The Cotton Tnrtnstry, i>. 81. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 137 

removals to Cherokee Georgia. " A short period of residence 
in the northwestern district, however, led the immigrants from 
middle Georgia to realize that their new lands were as a rule 
unsuited to the system of cultivation by slave lalior, and 
l)rought many of them to shift their party allegiance so as to 
oppose the aristocratic planters with whom they had formerly 
been in concert. 

Several other features in the vote of 1833 deserve attention. 
The Clarke stronghold in Ijincoln and Wilkes counties was 
carried by the enemy for the time lieing. on account of the 
popularity of the State Rights doctrine in that locality. Rich- 
mond County gave a majority of Union votes, though in 
1831 it had been carried hy Gilmer. This State Rights loss 
may be accounted for somewhat paradoxically 1)y o))serving 
the existence in the county of the strongest imllitictition paper 
in the State. The Augusta Chronicle, formerly the Clarke 
organ, but at this time noisily in favor of nullification, in- 
sisted that the whole State Rights party believed in the most 
radical doctrine though it would not acknowledge its belief.'' 
Such argument caused many State Rights men to vote the 
Union ticket in order to be certain that they were not uphold- 
ing nullification.' The counties near Savannah changed from 
Troup to Union, partly upon pi'inciple and partly because of 
jealousv which arose between the eastern and the southern 
sections ,of the State seaboard. 

Reflection by the State Rights party leaders upon the prin- 
ciples of the ''force biir' and upon Jackson's proclamation 
against South Carolina led, after some months, to the ado])- 
tion of a distinct platform for their party. This was done at 
an important State Rights meeting, lield in Milledgeville on 
November 18, 1833, at which nearly all of the prominent men 
of the party were present. The meeting adopted a preamble 
stating the need of forming an association for counteracting 
the designs of those persons in Georgia and in the country at 



(I Macon Telegraph, Aug. 10, 1833. An institution of importance in making all the peo- 
ple wish to drive away the Indians was the land lottery. By the provisions of the lot- 
tery law a per.son was not required to go and dwell upon the homestead, but was given 
the privilege of selling his section of land. The governmental distribution of the lottery 
tickets to every family in the State gave to every Georgian a contingent interest in the 
lands, and made the clas.ses vie with each other in the effort to have the lands thrown 
open for distribution and .settlement, cf. Southern Recorder, May 1. 1835. 

& Augusta Chronicle, Apr. 17, 1832. 

■ Ga. .Tournal, Aug. 21, 1833. 



188 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, 

large who were inculcating the doctrine of consolidation and 
nationalism, and especiall}^ for systematically opposing the 
President's proclamation and the force bill, which had aimed 
a deadl}' blow at State rights. The preamble was followed by 
resolutions providing for the organization of a formal associ- 
ation to be known as the "State Rights party of Georgia," 
the creed of which was to be the Virginia and Kentucky 
resolutions as triumphantly acted upon by Georgia in her 
dealings with the Indians. They declared that laws infracting 
the rights of the States were null and void and would be 
resisted by the State Rights party. The resolutions repeated 
the condemnation of the force bill, and requested the Georgia 
Senators and Congressmen to demand its immediate repeal." 

From these resolutions, unanimously adopted by the meet- 
ing, it is clear that a rift had begun to appear between Andrew 
Jackson and the State Rights part}' of Georgia. The Union 
party in Georgia a])proved the force ))ill as one of the meas- 
ures taken b}' the infallible Jackson. The State Rights lead- 
ers condemned the force bill, and necessarih'^ criticised the 
President. It was not long before they were in outright 
opposition to Jackson and all that was Jacksonian. 

Henry Clay had ingratiated himself with a large number of 
Southerners b}' proposing the compromise tariif of 1833. The 
common opposition of Clay and Calhoun and Berrien and 
Troup and Gilmer to Andrew Jackson, led in time to a coali- 
tion of all of them against .lackson and his friends. The 
breach of the State Rights party with Jackson had l)ecome 
complete in July, 1834, when Mr. Troup in a semi-public let- 
ter denounced the Administration as vicious and corrupt.* A 
further lapse of time was necessary, however, before the 
force of coumion enmity to a common foe could completeh' 
reconcile and combine the extreme anti-tariff men of the South 
with the champions of the "American system" elsewhere. 

As the autumn of 1836 approached, the question of a suc- 
cessor to President Jackson became of engrossing interest. 
The Union party in Georgia had become an integral part of 
the "Jacksonian Democracy," and of course approved the 
candidacy of Van Buren. The State Rights leaders still 
claimed that their organization was a part of the true Demo- 

«S. F. Miller, Bench and Bar of Georgia, vol. 1, p. 27. 
(■Niles's Register, vol. 46, p. 417. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 189 

cratic party, but they were thoroughh^ at loggerheads with 
Jackson and Van Buren. They followed a partly independent 
course in the campaign by supporting Hugh L. White, of 
Tennessee. The result of the contest in Georgia was a 
majority of some three thousand votes for Judge White over 
Mr. Van Buren. 

Within the next year the Union party made a rally to re- 
trieve its defeat in the Presidential campaign, but when the 
choice of governor was made in 1837 (rilmer, as the champion 
of State Rights, proved too strong for Schley/' who tried to 
obtain reelection. The election was very quiet, however, and 
the majority not a large one. 

The years 1837 and 1838 were almost devoid of political in- 
terest, but were distinguished as a period of great financial 
depression. The chief matter of interest in the beginning of 
1839 was the assembling of a State convention to reduce the 
excessive number of representatives in the legislature.^ A 
similar convention had been held in 1833, but its recommenda- 
tions had been rejected by the popular vote. The Union 
party had a majority in the convention of 1839, and used its 
power to some extent in arrangmg representation in a way to 
serve its own interests.^ During the same year occurred a 
great agitation for temperance,"' in the lead of which was 
Joseph Henry Lumpkin, who was made chief justice of the 
State upon the estal>lishment of the supreme court some 
years later. In the gubernatorial election of 1839 the Union 
party was victorious, gaining for McDonald a victory over 
Dougherty.' 

From 1837 to 1840 there was dragging a controversy be- 
tween the State governments of Georgia and Maine. The 
governor of Georgia, according to resolutions of the legisla- 
ture, demanded of the governor of Maine that two men at that 
time in the latter State should be given up to the authorities 
of Georgia to stand trial upon the charge of stealing slaves in 
Savannah. Maine refused the demand, and when Georgia's 



"Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 9, 1837. In the election of 1835 William Schley, the Union 
candidate, had defeated Charles Dougherty by 2.571 majority; Savannah Georgian, Oct 
30, 1835. 

^Southern Banner (Athens), May 31, 1839. 

clbid., June 7, 1839. 

dibid., Aug. 16, 1839. 

elbid., Oct. 19, 1839. 



140 AMERICAN HISTORICAI ASrtOCIATlOJST. 

Congressmon decided that it would not be wise to push the 
matter at Washington the whole matter was dropped. " 

In the Presidential campaign of 1840 the local parties in 
Georgia, following the indications which had been apparent 
for several years, became identified with the two national 
parties, and were known no more by the names of State 
Rights and Union. 

To summarize the decade from 1830 to 1840, we have 
observed first a change working in response to the call "not 
men but measures," a change whicli culminated about 1833, 
but which at no time brought about a serious question of 
downright principle between the parties as actually con- 
stituted; then a retrograde tendency toward the former 
stage of personal politics, and finall}^ a movement for the con- 
solidation of the local with the national political parties, re- 
spectively. We noticed the strong power of economic and 
social differentiation and of personal habit and prejudice in 
keeping up the party organization on either side. At only 
one time was there any consideraV)le bolting; a reorganization 
occurred in 1832-33, but the new parties retained, with slight 
changes, the constituencies of the parties which they had 
replaced. The county majorities in 1840 were b\' no means 
identical with those of 1825, but on the whole the relative 
situation of parties throughout the State in 1840 was very 
similar to that of fifteen years earlier. 

The eastern section of the State continued its allegiance to 
the Troup party after it claimed the name State Rights, and 
indeed after it became part and parcel of the national Whig- 
organization; while the whole of the mountainous north, much 
of the backwoods west, and most of the ])arren south main- 
tained in the Union party the political opposition to the 
planter class. Large sections of western and southwestern 
Georgia were found to be fertile, and soon had a considerable 
proportion of aristocrats and State Rights voters in their 
population; but counties which contained lands not held in 
high esteem proved slow in yielding to the tendency to adopt 
State Rights principles. Slaver^', as may be seen from any 
State or Federal census of the period, had spread to the west- 
ward, and also tended to increase in the southwest, but 
avoided the middle south. 



aSouthorn ]iiunuM-, Ai>r. 24, 18-10. 



Historical Report, 190!.- Phillips 



Plate VII 



C0T1 

UalKErL, MURRAY 



CORN 
CASS 



PAULDING 

COTTON 



CATTLE 
CARROLL 



, TROUP 

GRAINS 



CORN 

(HEAT 

RABUN, 



eAcco 
FRANKLIN. 



'^ottonI 
^ELBERT 



VGWINNCTT/ 

WALTON ■ 



/wiLKESV'*^° 



\WARREN') 



PIKE 



IMONROEN JONES 



cotton \JEFFER{ 
TwASHlNGTOm ^'^ 



COTTON 

HARRIS 



talbotN?''*^''°''5> 



\COTTON 

\wilkin 

SON 

/tOTTON\ eRfl||.j 

yTWIGGs\ 

. C.R 



COTTON 
\MUSCOGEE 



LAURENS 

SUGAR 



EMANUEL 

STOCK 
^STOCK 



BULLOCH 



COTTON 
RANDOLPH 

GRAINS 



EARLY 

SOGAR 



' COTTON 
SUGAR 



PULASKI 

SUGAR 



•'MONTGOMERY/ 



TATTNALL 



/RtC£\ 
JHAT 
HAM 



SEA-ISLAND) 



COTTON 

LEE 



DOOLY 

■CORN 



CORN 

BAKER 



COTTON 

DECATUR 



THOMAS 

GRAINS 



LOWNDES 

SUGAR 



APPLING 

LIVE-STOCK 



M' IN TOSH/ 
St A IS. 
COTTON^ 

' sea-is\Rige) 



MAP OF Crp]ORGIA IN 183 5 

.showng the chief products of the Counties. according to statistics 
ill the Augusta constitulionahsL,Feb.3, 1835 



Kortli Geordia | ] Th(> Cotton Belt 



Pine Banvns [ ] Coast Lands 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 141 

The old semi-frontier still strikes the attention in the later 
maps. A description of the section, written by a traveler 
through it in 1831," reminds one sti'ongly of Irving's Sleepy 
Hollow. The people were poor, unenterprising, and unen- 
lightened, but contented in their lowly circumstances. The 
pine woods stretched for scores of miles unbroken save by an 
occasional corn or cotton patch. The wire-grass beneath the 
pines, and here and there a few wild oats, furnished sustenance 
for ill-kept cattle. Few wagon roads existed, l)ut bridle paths 
led from cabin to cabin. The State of North Carolina was 
dubbed the Rip Van Winkle of the South, but Emanuel and 
Tattnall counties and their neighborhood in Georgia could 
easily surpass an v other section in sleeping ability. The peo- 
ple did not struggle against the enervating influence of their 
climate and surroundings. Without ambition or stimulus of 
any kind the life history of each generation Avas a repetition 
of that of the preceding one. Emanuel and Bullock counties 
of course continued to vote as of old, while Tattnall and Mont- 
gomery could not forget that Troup had honored them with 
his residence. 

During the period from 1825 to 18-10 there was unusual 
progress in Georgia in economic lines, chiefly regarding trans- 
portation. The great spur to enterprise was the need of better 
means of carrying cotton to market. In 1810 a steamljoat 
began to ply from Milledgeville to Darien. Two years earlier 
the first ocean steamer to cross the Atlantic had sailed from the 
port of Savannah under the ownership of Savannah citizens. 

There was much agitation concerning a system of canals for 
the State; but the first one of the proposed sj'stems, dug to 
connect the Altamaha and Ogeechee rivers, proved a failure 
and damped the popular ardor for that kind of comnmnica- 
tiou. Attention was then turned to railways as a better means 
of transportation. Wilson Lumpkin in 18:26 surveyed a route 
from Milledgeville to Chattanooga for a railroad to be oper- 
ated with mule power.* Steam locomotion on railways was 
accepted as feasible a few 3"ears later, and in 1836 and 1837 
the work of building the '■"Central of Georgia" and the 
"Georgia" railroads was actually begun. The one was built 
northwestward from Savannah, the other westw^ard from 



o Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 18. 1831. 
'>W. Lumpkin, Incidents (MSS.). 



142 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, 

Aug-usta, the main object of both being to connect the uplands 
of Georgia with the seaports/' In 1S43 these two roads with 
their branches aggregated a total length of 4()(> miles, Avhich 
was probabl}^ a greater mileage than was possessed b}^ any 
other State at the time.* 

Aside from the acquisition of new lands and the connection 
of her productive fields with the market, Georgia showed far 
too little enterprise in the period. Her railroads were not 
utilized in fostering an}^ other industry than agriculture, and 
her resources did not increase as rapidly as did those of the 
Northern States. The belief was firm that cotton was king, 
that slavery was essential to its cultivation, and that it was 
not feasible to improve existing conditions. On the whole, 
the State was too nnich like its sleepy hollow; it preferred to 
go in well-worn ruts and to ])laze no new paths. The attempt 
to introduce manufactures was only half-hearted, while in 
matters of statecraft the voting population was too willing 
not to worry itself with really important issues and to drop 
back into personal politics, with an occasional malediction 
upon the abolitionists, the protectionists, and the consolida- 
tion ists in the North. Yet Georgia was quite as progressive 
as any of her neighbors, and no criticism can be laid upon hei" 
which must not be applied to the whole group of the South(M-n 
States. 

"When completed, these roads reached a common terminus at the point from whioli 
the State of Georgia had already begun to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad to 
Chattanooga. At the point of junction a village was founded, which rapidly grew into 
the city of Atlanta. To this system was added a road leading through La Grange to 
Montgomery and the southwest. These radiating roads made Atlanta the strategic cen- 
ter of the whole South at the time of the civil war. 

hNiles's Register, vol. 65, p. 272. 



CHAPTER VI -THE WHIGS AND THE. DEMOCRATS: SLAVERY. 



The Whig party, as a national organization, originated in a 
coalition of .several smaller parties which in the beginning- 
were not sympathetic with each other except in their antag- 
onism to Andrew «Tackson as President. The nucleus of the 
part}^ existed as a faction hostile to Jackson in the all-com- 
prehending Republican or Democratic-Republican paily be- 
fore 1832. During his second term of office Jackson's 
dictatorial proceedings alienated a number of his supporters, 
who in several groups joined the opposition. The most 
general reason for the defection was that the President m as 
striving to exaggerate his prerogative beyond its natural and 
constitutional limits at the expense of the legislative branch 
of the Central Government. The one act of the President 
which excited most of the hostility against him was the 
destruction of the Bank of the United States by his executive 
edict. 

But the State Rights party in Georgia was led to reverse 
its friendly attitude to Jackson through its resen^tment of his 
threat to coerce South Carolina in 1832-33. Although Mr. 
Clay was at the head of the combined anti-Jackson factions, 
it was Calhoun who was chiefly responsible for the course of 
action of the Georgia contingent. The crisis of the nullifica- 
tion struggle was reached early in 1833. In that year the 
attempt in Georgia to adopt political principles as dift'eren- 
tiating the parties reached its nearest approach to success. 
The nuUifiers approved of all of Calhoun's doctrines; the 
moderate State Rights faction sympathized with the nullitiers 
in their martyrdom to Federal tyranny. These two factions 
comprised the State Rights party of Georgia, which as a 
whole repudiated Jackson, and thereafter sought to defeat 
him and his followers. The assistance which the President 
had rendered Georgia in ridding her of the Indians was seen 
to have been rather from hostility to the red men than from 

148 



144 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

friendship to the rights of the State. The toast which he 
uttered in contrast to a sentiment on the rights of the States, 
"The Federal Union, it must be preserved," proved distaste- 
ful to State rights advocates, who, when they thought on the 
subject at all, took it as a matter of course that any State 
might secede from the Union at its pleasure. 

Preparations were begun in Georgia as early as 1834 to 
defeat the wishes of Jackson in the choice of his successor in 
office. The arbitrary treatment of the bank in 1835 and 1836 
added another count upon which its (xeorgia critics censured 
the Administration. But the breach had already been made; 
it could only be widened by this and later developments. 

Martin Van Buren had never been held in very high esteem 
by the people of Georgia. The recent antagonism to the 
"American system" disqualified its champion, Henry Clay, 
as a candidate in the local field. But Hugh L. White was a 
\'ery popular man in the State. The progress of opinion, then, 
l)rought it a])out that the State Rights party in Georgia should 
join the anti-Jackson or Whig party at large for the contest 
of 1836, and that Judge White, as its candidate, should receive 
the electoral vote of the State instead of Mr. Van Buren. 

The fact that the local party acted with the AVhigs at large 
in 1S36 did not necessitate a permanent amalgamation with 
them, though it n;iturally had a tenden(;y in that direction. 
The Whigs in 1836 stood upon no platform but that of oppo- 
sition to Jackson, and did not even concentrate upon a candi- 
date.-' That there was no sympathy between the different 
divisions of the Whig party at the time of its birth, beyond 
that of opposition to a common adversary', is shown by the 
union within its ranks of the extreme high-tarift' advocates 
in the East with the nuUifiers, wdio were the extremists in the 
opposite direction, in the South. 

The years of Van Buren's Administration were at the begin- 
ning of a period of reaction from political excitement in 
Georgia. The issues which had formerly been considered as 
crucial gradually lost their position of vital importance. The 
governor's message of 1839 stated that the Indian contro- 
versy was settled, that the high tarifi' and the exercise of doubt- 
ful powers had been abandoned by the Central Government, 
and that the spirit of fanaticism about slavery was being 



f'cf. Stanwoort. History of Prosicloiitial Elections, p. lt-1. 



GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 145 

overcome b}^ reason.* But the peace and quiet did not 
strengthen the President. The financial stringency' of 1837, 
which crippled all of the local banks, was laid at the door of 
Jackson and his right-hand man, Van Buren. The perversion 
of the executive patronage found many critics. The hard 
times not only continued for several vears, but grew worse 
after a temporary improvement. Van Buren's strength in 
Georgia steadily grew less as the time approached for the 
election of 181:0. 

Throughout the interval from 1836 to 1840 the opposition 
at large was busy organizing its forces and consolidating its 
various factions into the Whig party, gradually approaching 
the adoption of positive political doctrines. The doctrines 
which its gi eater division favored were not entirely in accord 
with those of the State Rights party in Georgia, and that party 
was for the time placed in a position of indecision. The 
cardinal Whig plank was declared to be the checking of exec- 
utive tyranny by strengthening Congress. With this the State 
Rights party agreed, though it held that a better check upon 
the President or upon Congress lay in the strict observance 
of the rights of the States.^ Other items in the Whig creed 
were not so agreeable. It advocated the United States Bank, 
internal improvements, and a protective tariff. The issue of 
internal improvements, however, was deprived of importance 
by the development of railroads; the popular hostility to the 
bank had been greatly lessened by a counter hostility to Jack- 
son's method of opposing it; while regarding the tariff, there 
was only a choice of evils — the Whigs were in favor of pro- 
tection, and the Democrats had failed to live up to their 
promise against it. It was evident, too, that the Whig party 
stood in such need of assistance in the South that none of its 
doctrines would be pushed so far as to alienate the section. 
Both parties assumed practically the same position, for the 
time being, in regard to the slavery question in its various 
phases. 

Other considerations than party platforms had weight in 
bringing the State Rights leaders to their decision. The 
Whigs nearlv everywhere were the aristocrats, and so were 
congenial to the State Rights party in Georgia; the Union 



a Niles's Register, vol. 57, p. 215. 

'iff. Governor Gilmer's me.«sage <ii 1N!7, Niles's Register, vol. .=>o, p. LSI. 



H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 10 



146 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

party bad already chosen the Democratic alignment, and it 
was beyond the reasonable that their local opponents should 
admit their superior wisdom in the choice of sides upon 
national issues. The weight of the argument appearing to 
rest with the Whigs, the majority of the State Rights party 
decided to cast its lot with that organization. The strongest 
statesmen of the nation were at that time in the Whig ranks, 
viz, Webster, Clay, and. temporarih'. Calhoun: and in 
Georgia, Toombs, Stephens. Berrien, and Jenkins were the 
equals or superiors of any others in the new generation of 
political leaders in the State. 

As was to be expected, there was some disagreement in 
each of the local parties when they made their choice of align- 
ment with the national parties. Early in 1840 it became 
apparent that a good deal of confusion existed in State Rights 
and Union ranks/' The leaders of the State Rights party 
failed to agree upon supporting Harrison, and there were 
three Congressmen in particular — Messrs. Black, Colquitt, and 
Cooper — who openly supported Van Buren and entered the 
Democratic ranks with a considerable number of State Rights 
voters. These men were of course gladly i-eceived by their 
new associates; they were at once returned to Congress, and 
were later supported for other high offices bv the Democratic 
party.* 

Ex-Governor Troup published a letter in June, 1840, ap- 
proving of Van Buren's sub-treasury plan and showing that 
some of the State Rights leaders would have preferred to 
remain neutral in the Presidential contest.'' Many members 
of their partv, whose sentiments were voiced by Alexander H. 
Stephens, wished Troup hiiuself to allow the use of his name 
as a candidate:'' but almost the whole i)arty tinally agreed 
upon Harrison. 

While Troup had become the prophet and honored adviser 
of the State Rights party, ^^'ilson Lumpkin held a similar 
place among the Union voters. Lumpkin wrote several open 
letters to the I'nion rank and tile, declaring that Southern 
people should not join the Whig party, ^vhose Northern wing- 
was for abolition, and urging the candidacy of Van Buren as 



o Southern Banner, June 26, 1840. 

ftlbid., July 10 and 17, 1840. Jan. -Jl, ISU. -.ma Oct. is, ^Hi■2. 

t-Uiid., June 12. 1840. 

''R. M. John.ston and W. H. Browne, Life of Alexander 11. Stephens, i>. 140. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 147 

against that of Harrison." There was no bolting- aniong- the 
prominent Union leaders. ])ut nuinyvoters for the time broke 
their connection >vith the party. Larg-e districts of the back- 
woods were carried for Harrison in the "log cabin and hard 
eider"" campaign, which usually voted with the l^nion part}', 
and the Whigs carried the State with the very large majority 
of 8.840 votes. The strenuous labor of the Whig leaders in 
the State was partly responsible for the victory, but the dis- 
like for Van Buren and the popularity of "Tii)pecanoe and 
Tyler too'' must account for its usual size. 

The short period of the Whig party's strength, shown in 
Harrison's triumph of 1840, came to an end before the autumn 
of 1841. when McDonald of the Democrats defeated Dawson 
of the Whigs in the gubernatorial race with about. 4, 000 ma- 
jorit}'. There was a good deal of excitement during the year 
over the proposed "relief hiAvs," according to which the State 
Avas to borrow large sums of money, which were then to ])e 
loaned to such of the farmers as were in straitened circum- 
stances from the low i)rice of cotton and the failure of crops. 
Owing mainly to the demonstration l)y Robert Toombs that the 
proposed laws were based upon faulty i)rincii)les of finance 
they were defeated in the legislature, though most of the 
Democrats advocated their passage.^ The project was a pop- 
ular one with the voters, and its defeat by the Whig leaders 
tended to hurt their partv. The ascendancy of the Democi'ats 
continued through 1842, when their nominees foi" Congress 
were elected over the Whig candidates with an average ma- 
jority of 2,000 \otes. That election was the last one in which 
Congressmen were chosen upon the system of the general 
ticket, for that system was superseded within the next two 
years by the method of election l)y districts, as now in use. 

When George W^ Crawford, a Whig, was elected over 
Mark A. Cooper in the gubernatorial contest of 1843 with a 
majority of above 3,000 votes, it was evident that the Demo- 
crats had in turn lost strength. The loss was explained, prob- 
ably with reason, by the statement that when the party had 
received into its ranks that section of the State Rights party 
which had refused to join the Whigs, the newcomers were so 
tnigerly welcomed that nothing was considered too great for 



('Southern Banner, May 22 and Sept. 11, 1840. 

l> P. H. Stovall, Life of Robert Toombs, pp. 34 to 37. 



148 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

their reward; but when so many of the ''State Rights Demo- 
crats" had so often been given support for office by the 
l^nion or "old line Democrats," the latter had grown luke- 
warm and the party had become weakened. The fact was 
pointed out that the candidate of the Democrats who had just 
been heavily defeated was himself one of the three Congress- 
men who had entered the paily in 1840, and had constantlv 
since then received that support which should in equity have 
been given to the older and more legitimate leaders of the 
party. '^ The policy of showering all their gifts upon the new- 
comers was then discarded by the Democrats, and its abandon- 
ment was probably one cause of their success in the next 3'ear. 

During Tyler's Administration, from 1840 to 1844, the Whigs 
l(^st much of their strength in the South* because of the 
President's unusual deportment, and because the nationalist 
policy and the anti-slavery inclinations of the Northern wing of 
the party became more manifest. It became quite apparent 
that in joining the Whigs the State Rights party had in large 
measure abandoned its struggle for the particularist cause. 

The ])reparations for the Presidential campaign of 1844 
were begun almost as soon as the contest of 1840 had ended. 
The section of the State Rights party which had gone over to 
the Democrats in 1840 soon found itself again in harmony 
with Calhoun, and indeed urged his nomination for the Presi- 
dential contest of 1844;^ for Calhoun had left the Whig ranks 
upon being convinced that he could not succeed in inducing 
the party to look upon the Federal Constitution from the 
point of view of State sovereignty. Many State Rights men 
who remained with the Whigs only decided to do so after 
nmch hesitation. The Whigs seemed almost declared enemies, 
and the Democrats were thought to have proved treacherous 
friends. The decision was finally made by such men as 
Stephens and Toombs to go with the Whigs, with the half- 
conceived intention of dominating the party and forcing it to 
act in a wa}^ suitable to the South(M-n interest. By this 
division of the South between the two national parties the 
section, which was in a decided minority, still controlled the 
legislation of the country for twenty years longer. It was a 

a Southern Banner, Oct. 12, 1843. 

bLumpkin to Calhoun, Nov. 15, 1841, CuUioun's Lciicrs, p. 83'J 

cSoiithcni BinnKT; Mav I'J anil .Tunc 111. isi:!. 



GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 141' 

wise course of iictiou for the time being, but not so in view of 
the irrepressible character of the conflict then lowering. 

The Whig leaders in Gergia were politicians of umch adroit- 
ness. The}' realized the difficulty of their position and made 
the best they could of it. Their problem was, on the one 
hand, to keep the whole Whig party united, and. on the other, 
as far as possible to make the party recognize and uphold the 
principal claims of the South. To gain the confidence and 
full alliance of the Northern Whigs it was necessary to make 
ostensible concessions. To this end the Georgia Whig lead- 
ers made a show of supporting the plan of a protective tarifl'. 
We accordingly find Mr. Berrien addressing the United States 
Senate upon the subject on April 9, 184-i. He said that he 
objected to the agitation in favor of lower duties. The United 
States should be industrially independent. The American 
workman should be protected from the competition of the 
pauper labor of Europe, The tariff of 1842, a revenue 
tariff with protective features, he considered not hurtful to 
any section. On the contrary, the whole country had been 
improved by the system of moderate protection, and that 
system ought to be continued. On the next day Mr. Colquitt, 
a Democratic Senator from Georgia, replied to Mr. Berrien. 
He showed the contrast between Berrien's position in 1831 
and his position in 1841, and went on to answer his recent 
arguments before the Senate by advancing the doctrine and 
arguments of the State Rights party in 1831. Protection to 
industries, he thought, was now no less odious and unconsti- 
tutional than formerly, and the tariff of 1842, the work of the 
Whigs, was in his opinion the worst yet enacted. He con- 
cluded by censuring the Whigs for keeping the tariff in the 
background in the presidential campaign. On Ma}^ 7 Mr. 
Stephens expressed sentiments in the House quite similar to 
those voiced by Mr. Berrien in the Senate." 

It is to be noted that these Georgia Whigs did not advocate 
an outright protective tariff. A very high tariff in which the 
revenue feature was distinctly secondary would not have been 
supported anywhere in the South. Such a tariff' was not in 
contemplation in the Whig period. Berrien and Stephens and 

a Speech of Berrien, Congressional Globe, Appendix, 1st sess. 28th Cong., pp. 492 ff. 
Speech of Colquitt, ibid., pp. 4ttS f. Speech of Stephens, ibid., p. 582. 



150 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Toombs" (lid not sacritice a principle which was at that tiuu^ 
important. Their policy was that of conciliation and ingrati- 
ation, and their concession upon the tariff was simply a means 
to an end in practical politics. 

The Whig convention of 184-1: nominated Henry Clay for 
the Presidency. Mr. Clay had many ardent admirers among 
influential (Tcorgians, ])ut he had destroyed his prospects of 
carrying any considei-able portion of the South by committing 
himself against the annexation of Texas. The Southern Dem- 
ocrats were able to secure the nomination in their party for 
James K. Polk, who was known to be strongly in favor of 
annexing Texas.'^ Most of the local Whig leaders, however, 
stood firm in their loyalty to Clay. The strong organiza- 
tion of the Whig party and the personal popularity of its 
candidate, notwithstanding the Texas question, were exhibited 
by the comparatively small majority of 2,000 votes which 
Polk obtained in Georgia. 

The composition and the development of the Whig party 
had not been quite rational from the beginning, and the 
elements composing the Democratic organization were but 
little more congruous. About 1845, the dissatisfaction of the 
populace of Georgia with the trend of national politics 
became quite manifest. The Whigs were successful in the 
State for the next four or five years, chiefly because of the 
strength and magnetism of their leaders and the popularity 
of the candidates put forward ])y them. The local leaders 
had tact enough to avoid national issues and to emphasize the 
personal reasons for supporting the candidates of their party.'' 
Taylor and Fillmore carried Georgia in 1S48, because many 
of the Democrats feared that Cass was not sufticiently pro- 
slavery."' 

It was a matter of general note that the Southern wings of 
both parties had grown out of sympathy with the Northern 
divisions, especially in the case of the Whigs. It is remark- 
al)le that most of the Whig leaders in Georgia did not fol- 
low the lead of Calhoun in going over to the Democrats; but 
in truth the parties were not antagonistic upon the important 

1 For the position of Toombs in regard to the tariff, see Stovairs Toombs, p. 31. 

'' For anxiety of tlie Southern Democrats on tlie subject, see Southern Banner, MayJo, 

c Southern Banner, Sept. 4, 1845. 

'(Federal Union (Milledgcville, Ga.),Dee. 20, 184S. 



Historical Report, 1901- Phillips. 



Plate VIII 




ATYPICAJ. WHIG AND ])fc:MOCR\T CONTEST IN GEORGIA 
MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1848 

jhowino the local majorities in the presidential election ofthaLyear 
ZACHARY TAYLOR, MAJORITY LEWIS CASS MAJORITY 

OF THE WHIGS OFTHE DKMOCRATS 

^ 50 to eoper centof the total vote CH 50 lo 60 percent of the total vote 

1^ 60 „ 75 „ , CD GO .. 75 „ „ , 

MB over 7 5 , „ „ j~;2]over/5 



riEORGIA AND STATE RIOHTS. 151 

issue of the epoch, i. e., slavery, and as a i-nlc they stood as 
units only upon minor questions,^ 

The Southern wing of each party tried long and strenu- 
ously to control the actions and polic}" of its respective party 
as a whole, but toward 1850 the representatives from the North 
in Congress grew very restless under the domination, and 
issues at Washington assumed an alarming appearance. Dis- 
ruption of the Union seemed imminent, but the disaster was 
still postponed for a decade ])y the last of Clay's great com- 
promises. 

The fundamental question of the perpetuity of slavery in 
America, which had for so many years been persistently held 
in the background by Southern statesmen, iinally asserted 
itself during Polk's administration, as a crucial issue which 
could not thereaftin- be made to down until the arbitrament of 
civil war brought about its aljsolute settlement. 

It is here advisable to make an investigation of the status of 
slavery in Georgia with its hardships and its mitigations, to 
study the sentiment of the people regarding the institution, and 
to notice the progress of opinion in other parts of the countr3\ 

The colony of Georgia was established by Oglethorpe on a 
plan which was truly Utopian. It was to be a refuge for 
honest people suffering from oppression, a land where every 
man should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow and live 
contented in honorable poverty, where there should be no 
envy, no harshness, and no riotous living. But the plans 
laid out for the colony were no more applicable than were the 
fundamental constitutions which John Locke formulated for 
Carolina. They disregarded human nature, the spirit of the 
times, and the climate and soil of the country to be settled. 
The cultivation of silk and grapes proved impracticable; the 
deprivation of alcoholic liquors would not be borne by the col- 
onists; the subjugation of the rich swamp land near the coast 
was decla-red impossible except by slaves from Africa, who 
would not be affected by the miasma. The colony of Georgia 
remained a flat failure until the restrictions differentiating it 
from the typical English colony were removed. From that 
time the success and prosperit}^ of Georgia were assured. The 
tradition of the hard times when slaves w^ere forbidden tended 
to make later generations in Georgia the more doubtful of the 

aFederal Union, Oct. fi, 1S50. 



152 AMEKirAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

possibility of prosperiiio- without the Ix'iietits of the poculiar 
institution. 

As reg'ards the lot of the negn) slave, it was neither t^etter 
nor worse than in the average American colony or slave State. 
The police regulations, as they aj)}ieared upon the statute 
books, were very harsh in scAeral respects, but their rigor 
was considerably diminished as the years passed and as mas- 
ters and slaves came the better to understand each the nature 
and disposition of the other. The iirst (niactment regulating 
the status of slaves in Georgia was approved by the Crown, 
March 7, 1755, to be in force for three years. It was reen- 
acted in 1759 to extend to 1764. It was continued with some 
moditications by a law of 1765 and was further changed in 
some details in 1770. Upon the achievement of independence 
the somewhat lightened system of slave law was continued by 
State authority.^' 

The following regulations were in force during the whole 
or a part of the period in which slavery existed in colonial 
Georgia. All negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes, and other per- 
sons of color, except Indians in amity with the colony, were 
presumed to be slaves unless the contrary could be estab- 
lished. A slave must not be absent from the town or planta- 
tion where he belonged without a ticket from his master or 
overseer. When found violating this law a slave might be 
punished by an}' white person. In case the slave should strike 
the white person, he might lawfully be killed. Patrols were 
organized throughout the province, with the duty of riding 
at least one night in each fortnight to visit the several plan- 
tations in each district, and to whip ever}' slave found abroad 
without a ticket. Slaves might not buy or sell provisions or 
similar articles without a ticket.'' 

The following offenses were capital crimes when committed 
by a slave: Burning stacks of rice or stores of tar, or destroy- 
ing similar valuable commodities; insurrection, or the attempt 
to excite it; enticing away slaves, or the attempt; poisoning, 
or the attempt; rape, or the attempt on a white female; as- 
sault on a white person Avith a dangerous weapon; maiming a 
white person; burglary; arson; murder of a slave or free 



a Colonial acts of Georgia (Wormsloe Print), pp. 73 to 99, and p. 1G4. Jlarbiiry and 
Crawford, Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, pp. 419 and 424. Watkins's Compilation 
of Georgia Laws, p. 163. Lamar's Digest of the Laws of Georgia, p. 804. 

''For patrol law.s in a later period, .see Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1853-54, p. KM. 



OEORdIA AND STATE RItlHTS. 158 

negro. A slnxv iiiioht be tried for a eapital otfense by two 
justices of the peace and three freeholders, or for an otiense 
not capital b}^ one justice and two freeholders. Free negToes 
were included under most of the slave regulations. 

The earliest law was positively barbarous in some of its 
provisions, such as the offer of rewards for the scalps of 
slaves escaped beyond the Florida boundary, and the fixing 
of the limit of the legal working day for slaves at sixteen 
hours. The harshest provisions of the first laws were not 
continued longer than 1765. 

In order to prevent the attempt of owners to conceal the 
crimes of their sla\es. there was for a long time a provision 
of the law that slaves legalh' executed should be appraised 
and their value paid to the master by the province or kState.'^' 

There was perpetual fear of slave insurrection, though in 
the early decades of the nineteenth century there was less 
uneasiness than in the preceding or the succeeding period. 
The law" required a white man to live constantly on each plan- 
tation, and it prohibited more than seven negro men from 
traveling on a road together without a white man in their 
company.'' The institution of domestic servitude was con- 
sidered to require that the slave remain without literary 
education. The acts of 1755 and 1770 forbade anyone to 
teach a slave to write.'' In 1829 it was enacted that any negro 
or white person teaching a negro to read or write should be 
whipped, fined, or imprisoned.'' A law of the same year 
prohibited, under a small fine, the employment of any negro 
in the setting of type in any printing office/ A frontiers- 
man, more fearful than persons who lived in the black l)elt, 
urged that negroes should not be allowed to assemble to 
themselves because they were known to study their hymn 
books and so evade the law against negro education.' 

Man}' of these laws stood unenforced, except on very rare 
occasions. In most cases the master rendered informal justice 
on his own plantation, except in verj^ serious matters. The 

" Law of ]7r)5 (limit of £50); Colonial Acts of Georgia, p. 73. Law of 1770 (limit of £40); 
Watkin's Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, p. 163. Marbury and Crawford, p. 424. 
Repealed in 1793; Watkins, p. 530. Marbury and Crawford, p. 4-40. 

ft Law cf 17-55, supra. Law of 1770, supra. 

c The penalty was fixed at a fine of £10 in 1770. Watkin's Compilation, p. 163. 

d Dawson, Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, p. 413. 

e Acts of Georgia General A.ssembly, 1829, p. 175. 

/Article signed " Frontier," Georgia Journal, Dee. 12, 1831. 



154 AMEKTCAN^ HTSTORirAL Af^SOCTATlON. 

prot('cti()ti as well as the pmii.shniciit of the slav(! was largely 
in the master's hands. But the law provided that in case of 
murder or malicious killing of a slave the trial and punish- 
ment should be the same as if the victim had been a white 
person." A like regidation was made in regard to beating a 
slave without just cause.'' 

Slavery was distinctly a patriarchal institution. Except in 
the seacoast swamps and a few other malarial regions, the 
master lived throughout the year in the ""big house'' on his 
plantation, with the negro cabins grouped in '"quarters ''only 
a few yards away. The field hands were usually under their 
owner's personal supervision, while the house servants were 
directed by their mistress. The slaves were go\'erned by 
harsh overseers only in ver}- rare cases. Great ninnbers of 
slaveholders owned a verv small number of slaves, and labored 
with them in the fields. The ca])ins of the negroes were fre- 
quently as gi>od as those of the poorer whites. The fact that 
they were not always clean ^vas due to the hal)its of their 
occupants. 

It was, of course, to the interest of the master that his 
slaves should remain in the l)est possible condition. The 
Southern gentleman was widely known for his generosity and 
his innate kindness. The children of the two races were 
brought up as playmates, the mother of the pickaninnies fre- 
quently being the "mammy' of the master's children; and 
friendships enduring through life were contracted in early 
youth 1)etweon the master and his hereditary servants. To 
illustrate the consideration which owners frequently felt for 
their slaves, we may cite an advertisement stating that several 
negroes were to l)e sold "'for no fault, but merely on account 
of their unwillingness to leave tlu> country with their master."'' 

The law did not recognize family relations among slaves, 
l)ut public opinion condenmed the separation of husband and 
wife or parent and child. Where such separation occurred 
through the division of estates or otherwise it was not unusual 
for one of th(> owners to bu}^ th(^ membei-s of the family which 
he did not already possess.'' 

These considerations which indicate the existence of a softer 



nLaw of 1799; Marbury and Crawford, p. 443. 
Ji Law of 1805; Clayton, Compilation, p. 269. 
(•Augusta Herald, Dec. 25, 1799. 

do. g. Sale by A. H. Stephens of a family of slaves to Mr. Scott, \vli<i owned the father, 
ISIS; W. J. Scott. Seventv-one Years in (ieoryia. n. ;tO. 



GEOROIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 155 

side to tlie slave system than that which such prejudiced 
observers as Olmsted and Frances Kemble have described, are 
not here cited to justify tlie perpetuation of shivery, but to 
show why the Southern people, who were intimately acquainted 
with negro character and with the mild nature of his servitude, 
were less prone to condemn the system than were those who 
stood afar off and ostentatiously washed their hands of the 
whole foul busine.ss. 

Free persons of color were not generally held in high repute 
by the people of the South. In Georgia they usually num- 
bered somewhat less than one per cent of the colored population. 
As a class they were considered lazy, trifling, and thievish, 
and were suspected of corrupting the slaves. There were a 
few brilliant exceptions in the State," 1)ut liy no means enough 
to affect the general sentiment. 

All free negroes who were not industrious loved town life 
and avoided the country. A law passed in 1807 provided that 
'^ Whereas the citizens of Savannah and Augusta and their 
vicinities have heretofore and do now experience great injury 
and inconvenience from the numbers of free negroes, mulat- 
toes, and mestizoes of vicious and loose habits who have set- 
tled and are daily settling therein," free negroes in Savannah, 
Augusta, Milledgeville, and Louisville were to be subject to 
the same police regulations as slaves. A penalty was set upon 
the hiring of any house to a free negro without permission 
of the city council or commissioners.* 

Since the principles of sound policy were considered to 
require that the number of free negroes in the State should 
not be increased, an act, of 1818, forbade the entrance into 
(leorgia of all free persons of color, with a few speciffed excep- 
tions, fixing a penalty of a ffne or sale into slavery. The pro- 
vision for sale into slavery was repealed in 182-1:, but the law- 
was reenacted in 1859, with only seamen excepted, and with 
the unvarying penalty of sale into life servitude. Another 
law of 1859 directed that vagrant free negroes be sold as 
slaves for a definite period for the first offense, and for life 
for a second offense.' 

oE. g. Austin Dabney, in Gilmer, Georgians, p. 212. E. g. Wilkes Flagg, in Federal 
Union, June 11 and July 23, 1861. 

b Clayton, Compilation of the Law.s of Georgia, p. 309. 

(■Lamar, Compilation, p. Gil. Acts of Ga. Gen. A.ssem., 1859, pp. (18 and 69. The reac- 
tionary legislation of 1S.=)9 was the result, of cour.se, of the attempt of John Brown to 
arouse an insurrection. 



J5r> AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOC [ATION. 

E^•el•y free pc^r.soii of color in Georuiii was required to have 
a guardian who was responsible for his oood l)ehavioi-, and 
whose permission must he obtained before the neg-ro could 
have liberty to do certain things. Moreover, all free negroes 
must register annually with the county officials and l)e able to 
give a good account of themselves. No such persons were 
allowed to own or to carry firearms of any description." 

The ill esteem in which free negroes were generally held 
led to the policy of discouraging manumission. In 1801 all 
deeds of emancipation were made illegal except l)y act of the 
legislature. This Avas so far repealed in 1815 as to permit an 
owner to free his slave l)v will and testament. An act of 1818 
rendered void all subsequent manumission by testament. 
This was later repealed, and was reenacted in 1859.^' A 
prominent Georgia editor wrote, in 1829, that slavery was 
bad enough, but manumission in a slave State, without export- 
ingthe negroes, was dreadful. *' Experience proves,'' he wrote, 
"that there is no condition of humanity which begets more 
wretchedness, more vice, more premature disease and mor- 
tality than that of emancipated negroes who remain without 
political rights in the midst of a free white population."'" It 
was well known by those who took pains to inform them- 
selves that, as compared with the free blacks in New England, 
the slaves in Georgia were frequently the better clothed, bet- 
ter fed, better taught, and better treated by their superiors. '^^ 

Although manumission was discouraged by law, it was by 
no means completely stopped as a custom. Special acts were 
passed nearly every year to give freedom to specified slaves 
whose masters wished to manumit them, usually on the ground 
of good service. In at least one case the legislature appro- 
priated money to purchase a negro in order to set him free in 
reward for a praiseworthy deed.'' 

During the period before the abolition agitation, the lead- 
ing thinkers in Georgia, and probably the l)ulk of the people. 



n Prince, Digestof 1837, p. 808. Lamar, Digest, p. 811 (partially repealed in 1819). I'rince, 
Digest of 1837, p. 808. 

''Clayton, Compilation, p. '27. Lamar. C(in.i>ilati(>n, pji. sol ami MI. .Vets of Ga. (ien. 
AHsem., IS.'iO, ]k 68. 

(•Athenian, .\ng. 2n, 1829, referring to an article in the Baltimore American. 

('Athenian, Feb. 9, LSI^O, referring to an article of the same tenor in the Genius of Uni- 
versal Emancipation. 

< Negro named Sam set free at cost to the State of SI, 600, as a reward for extinguishing 
fire on the State House, ^[e.ssage of Governor Lumpkin. l.'<34: Ga. Senate .Tournal, IKU, 
p. 2b. 



GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 157 

considered .slaveiy an evil. While no way of abandoning the 
system was seen to be practicable at the time, it Avas hoped 
that some feasible means would in the future be found to 
accomplish that object. Meanwhile the introduction of great 
lumibers of slaves M^as considered undesirable. 

We have seen in a former chapter that the delegates from 
Georgia in the Federal convention of 1787 insisted on legal- 
izing the slave trade. But that the State authorities did not 
long hold the position of its delegates in 1787 is. shown by the 
act of the legislature in 1798, which prohibited the importa- 
tion of Africans from abroad after July 1 of that year." 

In the same year, 1798, a law was enacted against the inter- 
state slave trade. This law was reenacted in 1817, repealed 
in 1824, reenacted in 1829, modified in 1836, repealed in 1842, 
and reenacted with alterations in 1851.^ The general tenor 
of the law throughout the period was that a citizen of Geor- 
gia might introduce slaves into the State for his own service, 
or an immigrant might bring his slave property when settling 
in Georgia; but no one could bring in slaves for the specula- 
tive purposes of selling or hiring them. We have noticed 
that these statutes were not alwaj^s in force. It is further 
true that they were openly \-iolated with extreme frequency. 
The grand jury of Putman County presented as a grievance 
in 1817, that 20,000 slaves had been illegally brought into 
Georgia within the past year.*^ 

The laws against the foreign slave trade were also some- 
times violated. There were several conspicuous instances of 
this between 1816 and 1825.'^^ The violations, however, were 
usually punished by the State authorities.' Gen. D. B. Mitch- 
ell, who had resigned the office of governor of Georgia to be- 
come United States agent to the Creeks, was concerned in the 
illegal introduction of Africans in 1819. General Clarke, 
then governor of the State, charged Mitchell with the offense 
and caused the President to dismiss him from the agencv.'^ 

« Dawson, Compilation, p. 673. 

6 Augusta Chr nicle, Sept. 26, 1817. Dawson, Compilation, pp. 411 and 073. Acts of Ga. 
Gen. Assem., 1829, p. 169. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1836, p. 2.i4. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assam., 
1842. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1S.51, p. 86."). 

'• Augusta Chronicle, October 11, 1817. 

(iSpccial message of Governor Rabun, Nov. 11, 1818, Xiles's Register, vol. 15, p. 359. 
Petition of R. H. Wilde, 1827, Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 349. 

e Lamar, compilation, p. 808. Georgia .Journal. Aug. 16, 1818. Kiles's Register vol 17 
p. 221. 

/Niles's Register, vol IS, j.. 118, and vol. l'o, p. iitj. 



158 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

The better enforceuient of the law was secured in g-eneral by 
the offer of a reward by the State to piM'sons seizing slaves 
illegally introduced." 

The invention of the cotton gin is usually said to have been 
very intiuential in prolonging the existence of slavery in 
America. This is quite true; but, on the other hand, negro 
labor was never considered absolutely essential in the cultiva- 
tion of the short-staple cotton,* while in the district which 
produced rice and sugar and sea-island cotton it was almost 
fatal for white men to do agricultural labor. There was ap- 
parently a steady advance of sentiment in Georgia against the 
justice of slavery from the time of the adoption of the Federal 
Constitution until Garrison began his raging; no reaction is dis- 
cernible as resulting from the extension of cotton production. 

Gradual emancipation was thought to be the only practi- 
cable method of ridding the country of slavery; but the idea 
coidd not be borne of having the land tilled with free negroes. 
The plan of colonizing the blacks in Africa was welcomed as 
a solution of the problem. The tirst colonization society in 
the United States was established in 1817.'" The societ}" soon 
became national. Numerous branches of it were established 
in Georgia, and considerable sums of money were subscri])ed 
for the furtherance of its objects. A number of Africans 
who had been illegally introduced w^ere, by a legislative act, 
directed to be turned over to the colonization society '^ instead 
of being sold to the highest bidder, as was usualh' the custom. 

The influence of the colonization society brought about a 
small wave of humanitarian feeling which was quite notice- 
able in Georgia.'' One of the rej^resentatives of the State 
declared in Congress that he was desirous of seeing the negroes 
set free, though he condemned the plan of clothing them with 
American citizenship.'' An editorial in the Georgia Journal, 
probably at that time the strongest new^spaper in the State, 



"Ga. Journal, Dfc. 22, IHIS. 

''Of. Niles's Register, vol. 18, p. 47 (Mar. 18, 1820). 

"■For the hi.<tory of the eokmization society, see J. M.T. .Mcl'hersoii. History of Libcri;!, 
in .Johns Hopliins I'niversity Studies in Historical ami I'olitical Science. 

''Act of 1817; Lamar, compilation, p. 808. For estalilishmcnt of a brancli of tlie col- 
onization society at Millcdgeville and .subscription of money to carry hack the ncRroes 
illegally imported, see Georgia .Journal, May 11, isi'.t. 

'-Cf. Niles's Register, vol. 18, ]>. 2.^). 

./A. H. ytoi)hens. War between (lie States, vol. 2, p. 11:'.. .Vunuls of Cimgress, Kith 
Cong., 1st sess., p. 102.5. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 159 

published as its conviction, '"There is not a single editor in 
these States who dares advocate slavery as a principle."" 

But the Southern people were not thoroughgoing in their 
desire to be rid of slavery. The movement in the North 
soon progressed further than the bulk of the Southerners were 
inclined to go. At once the South became sensitive and re- 
sentful of intermeddling with its institutions. Apropos of a 
resolution oli'ered in Congress by Mr. King of New York that 
the proceeds of the sale of the public lands be applied to the 
})urchase of the freedom of the slaves, and in anger at certain 
reputed remarks of the United States Attorney-General criti- 
cising slavery, Governor Troup sent a fiery message to the 
Georgia legislature in 1825. "'Temporize no longer," said 
he. '"Make known your resolution that this subject shall not 
be touched by them but at their peril. * * * x entreat 
you most earnestly, now that it is not too late, to step forward, 
and having exhausted the argument, to stand by your arms." '^ 
The leading organ of the Troup party applauded the gov- 
ernor's message, but the legislature was not disposed to adopt 
his extreme position at that time, though in 1828 it adopted 
resolutions which were as strong as Troup coidd have desired 
on the subject.'' 

As soon as the difference of opinion becauje apparent be- 
tween the North and the South as to the feasibility of rapid 
emancipation, the colonization society was seen to be ineffi- 
cient for the contingency. The South thought it too radical, 
the North considered it as a half-hearted project at best. The 
Georgia legislature roundly condemned the society in 1827, 
declaring in most positive terms that the General Govern- 
ment had no constitutional right to appropriate money for its 
assistance."' 

The South always became extremely sensitive when any 
criticism on the moral rectitude of slavery was made by 
Northern writers. A Southern editor might obtain the atten- 
tive and e\en the approving notice of his readers when he 
demonstrated the evil of slavery and advocated its gradual 
abolition, but the same readers would feel outraged by attacks 



"Georgia Journal, Jan. 9, 1821. 
l> May 23, 1825. Niles's Register, vol. 28, p. 238. 
e Acts of Ua. Gen. Assem., 1828, p. 174. 
rfActs of Ga. Gen. A.ssem. 1827, p. 109. 



1()0 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

upon the institution which came from the North; and the 
very same editor would cry out to the South that its liberties 
and its constitutional rights were threatened with dreadful 
nivasion from the determined enemies of the section." The 
circulation of seditious pamphlets among the slaves was espe- 
cially feared, and the penalty of death was set for anyone 
convicted of distributing them.^' The better to prevent the 
success of such literature, the laws against negro education 
were made more sweeping. 

The publication of violent abolition propaganda began to he 
noticed and resented ])y Georgia about 1828. Special atten- 
tion was paid William Lloyd Garrison in 1831. An editor 
explained his actions on the ground of insanity, but urged 
the State executi\ e to demand his rendition by the governor 
of Massachusetts, as an oti'ender against the laws of Georgia.'' 
The legislature adopted a dilierent plan; it offered a reward 
of $5,000 for the apprehension and conviction in the Georgia 
courts of any of the editors or printers of the Liberator. '' Of 
course this was not expected to lead to the capture and trial 
of Garrison, but was simply a manifesto showing the attitude 
of the State government toward the abolitionists. 

The Southern leaders knew^ that the abolitionists were a 
small though nois}" faction, and. that their violent doctrines 
were condemned by all reasonable people at the North. 
Nevertheless the rai)id increase in the numbers and impor- 
tance of the agitators soon caused general alarm in the South.'' 
The governor of Georgia in 1835 considered the abolitionists 
feW' and contemptible, but prophesied the dangerous results, 
and advised precautionary measures on the part of the South.-^' 
The legislature reviewed the whole range of the slavery ques- 
tions and declared its convictions upon each. It stated that 
it was the duty of the North to crush the abolitionists; that 
Congress should r(\oulate the postal laws to prevent the circu- 
lation of inflanunatory matter; that Congress could not con- 
stitutionally interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia 
or in the Territories. The sixth article of the resolutions is 



"Athenian, Jan. 25, 1828, Feb. 6, lS2f., and May 10, 1831. 

'>Law of 1829. Dawson, Compilation, p. 113. 

f Athenian, Nov. 1, 1831. 

c^Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1831, p. 25.'). 

« Georgia .lournal, June 30, 1835. 

/Message of Governor Schley, Nov. 1, l,s35; Xilcs's Register, vol. ^9. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 161 

important in that it pointed the way to the position reached 
])y the South some twenty years later, that the Missouri 
compromise was unconstitutional in its principle. The article 
reads : 

'"'' Reaolve.d^ That the District of Columbia and the several 
Territories of the United States are the common propert}^ of 
the people of these States; that the rii^ht of exclusive legisla- 
tion in the former, and the power to make all needful rules 
and regulations for the government of the latter, which are 
vested in the Congress of the United States, are derived from 
the Constitution, which recognizes and guarantees the rights 
resulting from domestic slavery; and that any interference 
by that body with those rights will be unauthorized b}" and 
contrary to the spirit of tliat sacred charter of American 
liberty. ''« 

The contention for the legality of slaver}^ in all of the Ter- 
ritories had not previously been made, because it had not 
been seen to be necessary in preserving the equihbrium 
between the slave and free States. It was not taken up by 
the Southern statesmen for the next hfteen years, because 
their attention was directed to the annexation of Texas as a 
better means of attaining the same object. 

The slave owners were anxious to increase the area of 
slaveholding not because of any anticipated benefits to the 
territory secured, but in order to gain more I'epresentative 
strength for the slave interest, so as to prevent the possibility 
of the overthrow of the institution by the powerful North 
against the opposition of the Southern minority. The free 
States had long controlled the lower House of Congress, but 
with great eifort the South was able to keep the balance in 
the Senate. 

The West w^as seen to be rapidly developing; several of the 
organized Territories north of the line of 36*^ 30' were ready 
for statehood, while the available area for the erection of new 
slaveholding States w^as very restricted. Antislavery senti- 
ment had become very powerful in the North, showing itself 
in abolition petitions, in the obstructions to the capture of 
fugitive slaves, and in eJQForts to restrict the area of slavery. 
The South was obliged to take more radical ground if it did 
not wish the defeat of its contentions. 



a Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1835, p. 299. 

H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 11 



162 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

^Mien they considered it necessary for the welfare of the 
section, the Southern leaders did not hesitate to advocate 
measures which were dangerous to the integrity of the Union. 
Ex-Governor Ijumpkin, in 1847, advocated the organization of 
the South to resist the aggression of the North. He expressed 
great love for the Union, but preferred its dissolution to the 
oppression and destruction which he foretold as a consequence 
of the Wilmot proviso. He saw the great struggle between 
free and slave States rapidl}' approaching, and lamented that 
the South was not united under resolute leadership." 

A complex of disputed measures presented themselves before 
Congress in 181:9, the amicable solution of which promised to 
tax the powers of the pacificators. The unsettled question of 
the western boundary of Texas and the assumption of its State 
debt were made issues between the slave and free States; a 
recent decision of the Supreme Court denying the obligation 
of State officials to enforce the laws of the United States 
necessitated some new legislation for the rendition of fugitive 
slaves; the application of California for statehood without 
slavery was an encroachment upon the territory which the 
South considered as in a measure pledged to slaverj^; and the 
attack upon the slave trade in the District of Columl)ia, at 
this time becoming ver}" vigorous, was feared by the South 
as an opening wedge for the overthrow of the sj'stem. 

Upon all of these questions the two national parties were 
split into pieces. The turbulence of the Congressional ses- 
sion of 1849-50 was introduced b}" a bitter struggle over the 
election of the Speaker of the lower House. The Georgia 
Whigs were anxious for the Southern wings of both parties 
to unite and elect a Southern man by the ^'otes chiefl}" of 
Southern Representatives, but their plan was not followed. 
Scores of ballots were taken without a majority being cast for 
an}^ candidate. The Whigs and the Democrats voted for 
members of their own parties, but the Northern and Southern 
wings of either failed to concentrate upon anyone man, while 
the small delegation of the new Free Soil party added to the 
confusion. At length the proposition was made to choose a 
Speaker by a mere plurality vote. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, 
protested vigorousl}^ and violentlj' against the scheme, but in 
vain.^ The decisive ballot was at length reached. Howell 

"Calhoun's Letters, pp. 1102 and II80. 

''Stephens's War between the States, vdI. 2, pi>. liil to 19.3. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 163 

Cobb, of Georgia, was elected by a pluralit}^ vote from the 
Democrats, while the Georgia Whigs connived at the result 
by throwing away their votes on a member who was not a 
candidate for the chair." 

The several vexed issues on slavery were introduced into 
each House and heated debates arose over them. Some of the 
bills were to the advantage of the South, while others were 
against the slave interest. The altercation became violent, 
but Mr. Clay rose to the occasion and brought in the last of 
his great compromise measures, in the shape of a bill includ- 
ing all of the bills connected with slaver}- which were then 
before Congress. This omnibus bill was on the whole of 
decided advantage to the South. Among the most conspicu- 
ous supporters of the compromise were Toombs and Stephens, 
of Georgia, who foretold disunion and threatened dire calam- 
ities if it should fail of passage. Mr. Calhoun, speaking 
almost from his deathbed, warned the Senate against the con- 
sequences of intolerance, while Mr. Webster in his famous 7th 
of March speech, in advocacy of prudence and moderation, 
urged tolerance on the part of the North for the contentions 
of the South. The omnibus bill itself was destroyed bj^ 
amendments; but at length all of the measures contained in 
it were adopted by Congress. Restricted limits were fixed 
for Texas, but a large indemnity was given the State. Cali- 
fornia w-as admitted without slavery. New Mexico and Utah 
were erected as Territories with nothing said as to slavery. 
The slave trade was abolished for the District of Columbia, 
and a fugitive slave law was enacted w^hich gave promise of 
being efficient. 

In the fall of 1850 the people of Georgia, through a partial 
misunderstanding of the compromise, were plainh' opposed to 
it.'^ Earlier in the year the governor and the legislature had 
provided for the meeting of a State convention which should 
decide upon the course of action which Georgia should pursue. 
The attitude of those calling the convention had been one of 
alarm at the developments and tendencies in Congress and of 
anxiety for the adoption by the South of some policj- for the 
defense of the section. The Representatives of Georgia had 
considered the emergency extremely dangerous to the inter- 
ests of the South, and their speeches in Congress had been 

« Congressional Globe, Dec. 22, 1849. ^ Federal Union, Oct. 6, 1850. 



164 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASHOCIATION. 

highly threatening and inflammatory; l)ut these speeches had 
been made with the object of controlling the North by fear of 
disruption, so as to make it possible for the South to remain 
in the Union." The people of Georgia, however, had not been 
shown the underlying intention of their Representatives, and 
taking their tire-eating speeches and their awful prophes3'ings 
in dead earnest had grown so much excited as to be almost 
ready for immediate secession.^ For more than a year the 
people had l)een wrought up over the probable passage of the 
Wilmot Proviso, the object of which was to exclude slaver}- 
from the Southwestern Territories. Although that measure 
had l)een defeated, certain other contentions had been won by 
the Free States, and the passage of the compromise did not 
put an end to the agitation. Mass meetings of the citizens 
in the sununer of 1850 listened with approval to speeches on 
the infractions of Southern rights and the advisabilit}- of seces- 
sion from Rhett of South Carolina, McDonald of Georgia, 
and Yancey of Alabama.'' 

But the Georgia Congressmen returned from Washington 
in September, and the triumvirate — Toombs, Stephens, and 
Howell Cobb — set about demonstrating to the populace that 
the South had won a great victory b\' the compromise, and 
that by far the best course of action under the circumstances 
was to accept it as the basis for continuit\' of the Union. The 
trio took the stump in Georgia with great energy, and speedily 
reversed the tide of public opinion in the causing of which 
they had been so largely responsible. As the result of their 
efforts, the delegates to the convention, who were electe'd in 
November, w^ere Union men in iuniKMisc majorit}', whereas 
before the arrival of the Congressmen in the State many 
voices had demanded of the coming convention open resolu- 
tions of resistance to the North, and e\en the moderates 
wanted the l)ody simply to meet and adjourn Avithout action.'' 

Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb seized upon the convention as 
a great opportunity for good to their cause. By bringing 
about the election of Union delegates and defeating the resist- 

a Johnston and Browne, Life of Stephens, p. 245. Federal Union, Oct. 15, 1850. Cf. J. F. 
Rhodes' History of the United States, vol. 1. p. 134. Also Coleman, Life of Crittenden, 
vol. 1, p. 3t)5, and Stovall, Life of Toombs, pp. 76 to 80. 

b Federal Union, Oct. 8, 1850. 

c.h C. Bntlcr, Historical Record of Macon, Ga.. p. 194. 

^Federal Union, Oct. 15 and Dec. 3, 1850. Stovall, Life of Ttwmbs, p. 04. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 165 

ance men, they prepared the way for the adoption, b}' the 
supposedly resistance gathering, of the pacific policy embodied 
in the celebrated Georgia Platform/' The platform set forth 
that, though the State was not entirely content with the com- 
promise just reached by Congress, still upon the ground of 
its provisions Georgia was willing and anxious to remain in 
the United States; but that in case of the slightest further 
encroachment by the North, the attitude of Georgia would at 
once be reversed and disruption would most probabl}^ ensue. 
The platform was adopted by the convention with the sur- 
prising vote of 287 to 19.'^ 

By the action of their delegates the people of Georgia, 
bringing to a halt the progress of resistance doctrines, caused 
puldic opinion throughout the South to set in the opposite 
direction, and l^egan the revival of the conviction that the 
necessity for preserving the Union overbalanced the wrongs 
which the South had suffered up to that time.*^ 

The work of the Georgia convention of 1850 was not the 
result of the efforts of either of the political parties, but of a 
coalition comprised of nearly all the Whigs in Georgia and a 
strong section of the Democrats, led by Howell Gobi) and 
located chiefly in the northern counties of the State. The 
local opposition to the acceptance of the compromise came 
almost entirely from Democrats. It is apparent, then, that 
each party had in large measure reversed its position regard- 
ing the rights of the States since the nullification controversy. 
Yet the contentions of the friends and the opponents of the 
Georgia platform in 1850 were not radically different. Pi-ac- 
tically all Georgians believed that the rights of the South had 
been invaded. The point of difference was whether the en- 
croachments made forcible resistance advisable. 

Although the platform was adopted in the convention by an 
overwhelming majority, it was realized that there existed 
strong popular disapproval of any semblance of a sacrifice of 
Southern rights. The necessity was felt for an organization 
which would firmly uphold the principles of the compromise. 
There was therefore held on the night of December 12, 1850, 

"Gilmer, Georgians, p. 576. 

^Journal of the State Convention of ISfjO. Johnston and Browne, Life of Stepliens. p 
259. 

t'Von Hoist, Constitntional History of the United States, vol. I, p. 0. 



1()6 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

between the sessions of the convention, a meeting of tlie 
prominent members of that body, at which it was resolved 
that party alignments as then existing were illogical and hurt- 
ful to the country and should be destroyed." 

At that meeting a new political party was organized for 
(jeorgia, with Toombs and Stephens responsible for its exist- 
ence. All friends of the Union were invited to join the 
Constitutional Union Party, which laid down as the guide for 
its actions the platform adopted by the Georgia convention, 
and which nominated Howell Cobb as its candidate for 
governor in 1851. Cobb, as a Democrat, had always before 
been opposed by Toombs and Stephens, but of course they 
were the strongest of his supporters in the newly formed 
party. 

The organization in favor of "Constitutional Union'' was 
opposed by another for "Southern Rights," whose conten- 
tion wasH^at the compromise involved too much sacrifice on 
the part of Itm^outh, and whose candidate for the governor's 
chair was ex-Governor McDonald, a former Democratic col- 
league of Cobb. As was shown by the results of the contest, 
the Southern Rights party had alone as its constituency the 
major part of the Democrats. Cobb was elected by the very 
great majority of 18,000 votes.'' All of the Whigs entered 
the Constitutional Union party, and were joined in it Iw the 
mass of the population in the mountainous northern counties, 
who were accustomed to follow Cobb's leadership, and who 
were glad of an opportunity to support a party which favored 
the perpetuation of the Government of the United States and 
to antagonize one which seemed inclined to destroy it, 

A few weeks after the gubernatorial contest the legislature 
was called upon to elect a United States Senator to succeed 
Judge J. M. Berrien, the old Whig champion, and at that 
time the ablest constitutional lawyer in Congress. ]\Ir. 
Berrien did not approve of the Georgia platform, and, in 
view of the fact that his party had established the platform, 
was not a candidate for reelection. Mr. Toombs was placed 
in nomination, but was opposed by a determined group of 
Berrien's friends.'" Owing to the high esteem in which the 

a Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 176. Federal Union, Jan. 21, 1851. Sonth- 
ern Recorder, Feb. 24, 1853, and Dec. 24, 1850. 

?) Federal Union, Dec. 17, 1850. Stovall, Life of Toonib.s, i)i.. 97 to 102; Southern Recorder, 
Nov. 11, 1851. Savannah Kcpublican, Oct. 24, 1851. 

c Stovall, Life of Toombs, p. 95. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 167 

platform was held, as much as to Toombs's own popularity, 
the opposition was readily overthrown by the friends of the 
platform. Mr. Berrien was the last of the older school of 
Georgia statesmen to retire from the field of politics. Troup, 
Gilmer, and Wilson Lumpkin had long been in private life. 
Each of them saw and dreaded the clouds mounting above 
the horizon, and none of them had great confidence in the 
ability of the younger school to meet the coming emergen- 
cies." Mr. Lumpkin alone of the four lived through the war 
which he declared inevitable, to witness the defeat which he 
dreaded. 

The Southern secession movement of 1850 had been de- 
feated by the resolution of the Georgia people, and a desii'e 
for peace spread throughout the section. The Constitutional 
Union party had been organized to meet an emergencj", and 
had met it most successfully. Failing in their contentions, 
the secessionists ranged themselves under the Georgia plat- 
form, as a declaration setting forth the limit of what they 
would concede.'' For several years after 1850 Georgia was 
strongly in favor of maintaining the Union; but, as there was 
no special need of a party with such a platform, a tendency 
set in toward the former arrangement of parties. 

For the Presidential contest of 1852 both the Whigs and 
the Democrats in the nation planted themselves upon the com- 
promise of 1850, and, as far as platform was concerned, there 
was little ground for choice by Southern voters; but the north- 
ern wing of the Whigs was more antagonistic to slavery" than 
that of the Democrats, and General Scott, who was nominated 
by the Whigs for the Presidency, was quite unacceptable to 
the bulk of the Southern people. 

The situation of factions in Georgia during the contest of 
1852 was complex. A large portion of the Whig party, 
led by Toombs and Stephens, decided that it could not sup- 
port General Scott, and held a convention to nominate Daniel 
Webster and Charles J. Jenkins as President and Vice-Presi- 
dent.'" Furthermore, the supporters of the Democratic can- 
didate were divided into two sections. The bod}' of the Dem- 
ocrats in the State who had composed the Southern Rights 
party of the previous year declared in favor of Franklin 

" Wilson Lumpkin to J. ('. Calhoun, Nov. 18, 1847, Calhoun's Letters, p. 1135. 
('J. W. DuBose, Life of \V. L. Yancey, p. 295. 
■•Federal Union, July 20 and Sept. 21, 1852. 



168 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Pieivo, with a ticket of electors from their own ranks, but 
most of the Union Democrats who had voted for Cobb in 
1851 followed his lead in nominating- an independent electoral 
ticket, which was also pledged to vote for Pierce. There was 
little excitement, howev^er, in the race. Webster died just 
before the time of the election, but most of those who had 
decided to vote for him cast their ballots for him, notwith- 
standing- his death. An effort was made to reconcile and com- 
bine the two factions supporting Pierce, but it only resulted 
in failure. 

The vote cast in Georgia was as follows: For Pierce on the 
regular Democratic ticket, 33,84:3; for Pierce on the Union 
ticket, 5,773; for Scott, 15,779; for Webster, 5,289; for 
Troup and Quitman, on a Southern Rights ticket, 119." The 
Democratic vote for Pierce was decidedl}" larger than that 
for all the other tickets combined. The local vote is inter- 
esting. The Whig vote was cast in its usual localities, and 
was much smallei' than customary. In sections especially 
under the influence of Toombs, Stephens, or Ti-oup, the 
Whig vote was in favor of Webster, and the Webster ticket 
obtained pluralities in several counties. The Union vote for 
Pierce was also concentrated, and was conlined to the north- 
ern counties, in several of which the ticket received actual 
majorities. The supporters of Scott were so widely scat- 
tered over the State that while he received a considerable vote 
in every section he obtained hardh^ any county pluralities. 
The Democratic ticket received the majority of all votes cast 
in every section, except in the northern counties and in the 
neighborhood of Toombs, Stephens, or Troup. 

In the quiet period after 1851 the parties in Georgia fell 
back into their old alignments,^ for when there was nothing 
to disturb the usual course of affairs men preferred to vote 
as thej^ had been accustomed. For the gubernatorial contest 
of 1853, the part}^ of Stephens and Toombs, calling its<df the 
Union party, and being very nearly the same in personnel 
and constituency as the former Whig party.' put forward 
C. J. Jenkins, and the Democrats nominated Herschel ^^ 
Johnson. fJohnson had been a Southern Rights man. and 



a Savannah Republican, Nov. 6, 1852. 

6 Southern Recorder, Apr. 27, 1852. II. Fielder, Life of Jo.s. K. Brown, p. 7(1. 

'•Southern Recorder, Mar. 15, 1853. 



GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 169 

was mildly denounced as a lire eater by his opj^onents in the 
campaign of 1853. The election, though not exiting, was 
very close; Johnson was victorious by about 500 votes. His 
support came from the old Democratic area, but the count}' 
votes all over the State were closer than had been usual. 

Before the occurrence of the next election the strain 
between the sections was renewed, and the growth of that 
sentiment was rapidly increased, which was to result in seces- 
sion from the Union. The Whig party disastrously failed 
to meet the emergency in the Kansas-Neljraska struggle. 
The dissolution of that party had, indeed, begun as early as 
1849, when its Northern and Southern wings split asunder 
upon the Wilmot Proviso, and when the Georgia Whig Con- 
gressmen attempted to substitute a distinctly Southern party 
for the unsatisfactory alignments then existing.'' The Presi- 
dential election of 1852 was far from reuniting the antago- 
nistic wings. There was no plank upon which the Whigs 
could substantially agree, ^ and no efficient reason for the 
continued existence of the party.' Whiggery died a slow 
death, and no one can say when it breathed its last in Georgia. 
Toombs and Stephens finally left the party in 1854, and with 
a considerable following of their Whig supporters entered 
the ranks of the Democrats. The remainder of the Whigs 
wereal)sorbed by the Know-nothing party, and notwithstand- 
ing their want of a fixed policy kept up an opposition to the 
Democrats for some years longer. 

The position of Georgia parties was unsta))le throughout 
the period of Whig and Democratic rivalry. The parties had 
reached their respective conditions thi'ough a series of oppo- 
sition policies. The Whigs were at Hrst organized to oppose 
Andrew Jackson, and it happened that the Georgia State 
Rights party, in opposition to the Union party, which adhered 
to the President, was driven to join the Whigs. The State 
Rights leaders when joining the national organization modi- 
fied their former tenets of State sovereignty, and upon their 
adoption of moderate consolidation principles the Union or 
local Democratic party took up the doctrines which their 
rivals had let fall. 



« Stephens, War between the States, vol. 2, p. 178. 

6 Federal Union, Sept. 21, 1852. (Statement of Toombs.) 

c Southern Recorder, Feb. 24, 1852. (Letter of Stephens.) 



170 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

In the election of deleg-ates to the Georgia convention of 
1850, and in the actions of the deleoates during the delibera- 
tions of that body, principle and conviction were strongly 
exhibited. The people at the time were nerved to meet a 
crisis, and when they were led in the proper course of action 
by Toombs and Stephens and Cobb, the great majority were 
convinced that the course was the right one, and were eager 
to follow it; while the minority, also from conviction, took 
the opposite view, attempting to lead the South to demand 
greater concessions than the compromise had secured. 

As soon as the crisis had passed the sentiment was almost 
the same throughout the State — peace for the present with the 
compromise as the basis; resistance in future to any further 
aggressions of the North. When nearly all were agreed upon 
general policy the only contests which could arise were those 
of an unimportant and personal character, such as the Presi- 
dential election of 1852 and the election of governor in the 
3'ear following. 

When the struggle for slavery extension broke forth in 
1854 the logical development would have been for the whole 
of Georgia to combine in one organization. That this did not 
actually occur was due to the fundamental classification of the 
people upon economic and social lines and to the personal 
antagonisms which we have noticed as being so influential in 
antebellum Georgia politics. The actual result was that the 
local Whig party degenerated into a mere opposition party, 
adopting inconsistent positions from time to time as the best 
chances of victory seemed to advise,'^ 

aCf. Speech of Toombs at Augusta, Sept. 8, 1869; Federal Union, Oct. 4, 1859. 



CHAPTER VII -THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE AND ITS 

RESULTS. 



The great question of the perpetuation of slavery was 
opened afresh and in a new phase early in 1854 by the intro- 
duction into the United States Senate of a bill drawn up by 
Stephen A. Doug-las, of Illinois, for the organization of Kansas 
and Nebraska as Territories. The bill was accompanied by a 
committee report stating that the compromise measures of 
1850, inasmuch as they had given territorial government to 
Utah and New Mexico with a reference of the question of 
the existence of slavery to the local courts, had established 
the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in 
the States and Territories. The conclusion of the report was 
that "all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories 
and the new States to be formed therefrom are to be left to the 
decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate 
representatives to be chosen by them for the purpose;" and 
that "all cases involving title to slaves and questions of per- 
sonal freedom are to be referred to the jurisdiction of the 
local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme 
Court of the United States." The bill itself provided for the 
creation of the two Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which 
when admitted as States should be received into the Union 
with or without slavery, as their constitutions might prescribe 
at the time of their admission. Section 8 of the law of 1820, 
known as the Missouri Compromise Act, was declared inoper- 
ative and void by the Douglas bill, as being "inconsistent 
with the principle of nonintervention by Congress with 
slavery in the States and Territories." The act of 1820 had 
forbidden the establishment or existence of slavery in the 
Territories as then possessed by the United States lying north 
of the line of 36^ 30' north latitude. The eifect of the act 
of 1854, when passed, was to remove the question of the 
establishment of slavery in a Territory entirely out of the 
sphere of Congressional legislation and to establish the possi- 



171 



172 amp:ktcan historical association. 

bility of indctinite slaveiy extension. Congressional restric- 
tion was abandoned in favor of popular sov^ereig-nty. 

Nearly every Southern Senator hastened to g-ive his support 
to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Most of the Northern Demo- 
crats also favored the measure. With the opposition chiefly 
of the Northern Whig's, the bill passed the Senate ])y a vote 
of 87 to 1-J:. A stronger opposition was encountered in the 
House, where the- South had much less strength. Popular 
sentiment was ])eing aroused in the Northern States in con- 
denmation of the bill, and it was necessary to hurr}^ it to a 
final vote. A bit of parliamentary strategy on the part of 
Alexander H. Stephens shut off the debate, and the bill passed 
the House with a vote of 118 to 100. The success of the bill 
in the House, as well as in the Senate, was due to the fact that 
the majority of the Northern Democrats voted for it. though 
the Northei'n Whigs were unanimous against it. 

The theories of Mr. Douglas immediately found strong 
approval with the government and the people of Georgia. 
We have already noticed a resolution of the Georgia legis- 
lature in 1835 which declared the inability of Congress to 
interfere with slavery in any of the Territories and which 
anticipated the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, or rather 
ignored any binding effect wdiich the compromise may have 
had." There is no doul)t that public opinion in Georgia in 
1885 was in consonance with the declaration of the general 
assembly, and it is further true that at no subsequent period 
was sentiment in the State less radical on the slavery question. 
The Georgia platform of 1850 declared that the State would 
not withdraw from the Union on account of the infractions 
of Southern rights theretofore made. On the other hand, it 
by no means pledged the State against attempting to secure 
any further advantages for the South. 

The Kansas bill was introduced into the Senate on January 
4, 1854. As soon as the news of it reached Georgia the 
Democrats accepted it with enthusiasm as a just yet magnani- 
mous concession to the South by the lovers of the Union at the 
North, and they loudly praised Douglas for his broad-minded 
statesmanship. The (ieoi-gia Whigs at first held aloof, but 
soon became quite demonsti'ative in support of tiie principle 
of the Kansas bill, and declared that the Democrats had stolen 
their thunder.* 



(' Infrfi, J). 161. ''Fedcnil Union, Feb. 21 and '28, ^H!)4. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 173 

The Georgia legislature lost no time in stating- that the 
commonwealth had firmly fixed itself uDon the principles of 
the compromise of 1850 as a final settlement of the agitation 
upon the question in point, distinctly recognizing that Con- 
gress could not impose upon the Territories any restrictions 
as to the existence of slaver}^ in them, and providing that 
such matters must be determined by their citizens alone. The 
legislature stated its approval of the Douglas bill for Kansas 
and Nebraska as showing the determination of the people of 
the North to carry out the principles of the compromise of 
1850. It instructed the (xeorgia Senators and requested the 
Representatives to support the bill in Congress.'^' 

The editorial condemnation of the bill in the North soon 
showed to the people of Georgia that the mass of the North- 
ern people would make no voluntary concession to the slave- 
holding interest. By the time of the signing of the act by 
the President on May 80, 1851, it was realized that if any 
substantial benefit was to be gained from its passage, the 
struggle in ('ongress was only the prelude to a contest within 
the debatable land itself. 

The Georgians were grateful to the Northern Democrats 
for the assistance which they had rendered, but they soon 
became anxious on account of the great excitement which the 
passage of the bill aroused in the North. '^ The emigrant aid 
societies in the free States made necessary some counter move 
from the South. Companies of emigrants w^ere formed in 
the cotton States with the purpose of increasing the number 
of voters in Kansas who would vote and work for the estab- 
lishment of a pro-slayery constitution. Tiie company organ- 
ized and conducted by Major Buford, of Alabama, was the 
most conspicuous of these; but among the smaller squads, 
several were composed wholly of Georgians.'' Large private 
subscriptions of money were raised for the furtherance of the 
project. The Georgia legislature directed the superintendent 
of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, which was owned and 
operated by the State, to give free passage to Major Buford"s 
company on their route, and to any other emigrants to Kansas 
of like character.'^ 

f Approved Feb. 20, 1854; Acts of Georgia Gen. Assem. 1853-1854, p. 590. U. S. Senate 
Misc. Doc. No. 48, 33d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1. 
'' Federal Union. June 19, 1855. 
c Federal Union, Oct. 6, 1855, and Aug. 26, 1856. 
rfActs of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1855-1856, p. 553. 



174 AMERICAN HISTOEICiAL ASSOCIATION. 

The pro-slavery and ant-islavery factions in Kansas carried 
on a harassing struogle for the supremacy through 1855, 
1856, and 1857. Each ei'ected a government which it declared 
to be the only legitimate one. Three successive territorial 
governors, appointed from Washington, wrestled with the 
problems only to fail in mastering them. The Georgia politi- 
cians at first expected Kansas to apply for admission in the 
near future as a slave State." The inmiigrants from the 
South were the more numerous for two or three years after 
the passage of the Kansas act, and at that time the chief fear 
of the South was that the anti-slavery power would })ring aliout 
the rejection of the application of Kansas when it should ask 
for admission with a pro-slavery constitution.'' The general 
conviction was that such an event would render a dissolution 
of the Union justifiable and very probable. Governor John- 
son actually advised the legislature, in accordance with the 
fourth resolution in the Georgia platform of 1850, to provide 
for the calling of a convention of the people to determine the 
time and method of resistance in the expected contingency.'^ 
But as time wore on the contingency grew less probable, and 
the wave of excitement on that score died away. 

Notwithstanding the widespread hostility'- in the North to 
the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Democratic 
party, in its national convention at Cincinnati in June, 1856, 
adopted that principle as one of the planks in its platform, 
and Mr. Buchanan, as the candidate of the party, accepted 
the plank. The party thus declared for non-interference with 
slaver}^ in the Territori'es, but such a declaration was capable 
of two constructions, and in fact the Northern and Southern 
Democrats placed different interpretations upon it. After the 
party had won the election the misunderstanding became 
more apparent. 

According to the Southern view, there were two methods of 
restricting slavery in the Territories, both of which were 
illegal and unconstitutional. The first was by direct Con- 
gressional legislation against slaverj-, such as had been con- 
tained in the Missouri Compromise, which was now sometimes 
spoken of in the South as an odious piece of legislation; the 

a Federal Union, June 19, 1855; Mr. Howell Cobb's opinion. 

''Resolutions of the Georgia Democratic convention, June 10, ia>5. Federal fiiion 
June 12, 1855. 
« Federal Union, Nov. G, 1855. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 175 

second was by the application of ttie squatter sovereignty 
doctrine before the Territor}^ was read}" for statehood. The 
Northern or Douglas Democrats condemned the first method, 
but approved of squatter sovereignt3\ The newly organized 
Republican party, in its various elements, favored almost any 
means which would secure the restriction and the weakening 
of the institution of slavery. 

A large portion of the Southern delegates to the Demo- 
cratic convention at Cincinnati were instructed to vote for no 
candidate for the nomination who would not unequivocally 
avow himself to be opposed to either form of restricting slav- 
ery. « In his letter of acceptance Mr. Buchanan seemed to 
say what the South demanded, but there was some vagueness 
in his language. An emergency was required before his ex- 
act policy would be revealed. In June, 1857, he sent Robert 
J. Walker to Kansas as Territorial governor. Walker deliv- 
ered an inaugural address in which he expressed his opinion 
that Kansas must become a free State, and showed an inclina- 
tion to interfere with the recent acts of the legislature in pre- 
scribing the method of ratification of the constitution which 
was about to be formulated. 

The attitude of Walker was objectionable to the Southern 
interest. The convention of the Democratic party in Geor- 
gia, June 2-1, resolved that Walker's inaugural address was a 
presumptuous interference in matters over which he had no 
legitimate control; that it was a gross departure from the 
principle of non-intervention established b}- the Kansas bill; 
and that it was the President's duty to remove Walker at 
once. These resolutions were too mild to suit some of the 
Georgia Democrats,* while b}" others they were thought to be 
radical and out of place. This led to a division of the Demo- 
crats of Georgia into "National" and "Southern" factions.^ 
The whole matter was simplified for the local politicians by 
the decision of the United States Supreme Court rendered in 
March, 1857, in the Dred Scott case; but for the country at 
large the dictum of the court had the etfect of aggravating 
the dispute which it was expected to settle. 

The circumstances of the famous case of Dred Scott v. 



n T. W. DuBose, Life of Yancey, p. 320. 

b r. W. Thomas, in Southern Recorder, Nov. 7, 1857. See also Federal Union, June 30 
1«57. ' 

(•Southern Recorder, Sept. 8, 1857. 



176 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Sandford are too well known to make a review advisable in 
this connection. The dcci.-^ion of the court Avas entirely in 
accord with the extreme Southern view on slaverj' extension. 
The chief question before the c-ourt was whether Dred Scott 
was constitutionally a citizen with an}' rightful standing in 
the courts of the United States. The court decided that he, a 
negro and the descendant of slave parents, was not a citizen of 
an}' State or of the United States, and therefore could not be a 
party to any suit in the courts; and that, further, the residence 
of his master in Illinois and Minnesota did not change the 
negro's status as a slave. The court then proceeded to pro- 
nounce its opinion on a matter which w'as not necessarily 
involved in any degree in the case before it. It stated that, 
slaves being regarded as property and not as persons by the 
Constitution, Congress had no right to legislate slavery out 
of any territory of the United States, and therefore the legis- 
lation of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, was 
unconstitutional. " 

Though the infallibility of the Supreme Court had in former 
times been questioned by the people of Georgia, the universal 
opinion in the State was that for the Dred Scott case the 
court had had a remarkably clear insight into revealed law.* 
The Northern Democrats also accepted the decision. Mr. 
Douglas in some way reconciled the opinions of the court 
with the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and joined in the 
general Democratic rejoicing. But the anti-slavery men were 
far from acquiescing* in any such settlement. 

Developments connected with Kansas soon afterwards dis- 
tur))ed the harmony in the only remaining national paity. 
The Lecompton convention, for which arrangements had been 
made by the pro-slavery legislature before the inauguration 
of Walker as governor, drew up a constitution Avhich placed 
numerous safeguards around the institution of slavery, and 
refused to submit most of these articles for popular ratitica- 
tion. Before the close of 1857 it was clear that the majority 
of settlers in Kansas were anti-slavery men. 

Mr. Douglas refused to abandon the principle of popular 
sovereignty. He was therefore driven to act with the Repub- 
licans in their hostility to the Lecompton constitution. The 

a For report of the case see Howard, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 19, p 293. 
bCf. Federal Union, Mar. 31, 1857. 



GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. l77 

Southern Democrats then read him out of the Democratic 
party, branding- him with treason to the South and to the 
Democrac3^" 

The South wished to secure the admission of Kansas under 
the Lecompton constitution, hut when conditions in the Terri- 
tory had been used as a text for numerous tirades against 
slavery in general, the section grew anxious to put an end by 
any feasible means to the agitation over '"bleeding Kansas." 
The Republicans were accused of being so eager to keep open 
the irritating question that the}^ were ready to oppose the 
admission of the State even with an anti-slaver}^ constitution.* 
The whole matter was finally closed by the submission of the 
Lecompton constitution to a popular vote in Kansas, and its 
rejection ])v the majority on August 2, 1858. It was thus 
decided that slavery should not exist in Kansas. But this 
settlement was not reached until the rift in the Democratic 
ranks had become so serious as to render the Repul>lican 
triumph almost inevitable in 1860. 

At this period the whole American people expected a crisis 
to arrive at the end of Buchanan's administration; and the 
conviction grew the stronger as the Presidential election drew 
nearer. In Georgia there was considerable diflerence of 
opinion as to the best course of action for the State to pursue 
in the dreaded emergency of a Republican accession to power. 
To appreciate the positions of the respective leaders in Geor- 
gia, we must take a short review to cover the more recent 
developments in State politics. 

The first rumor of the existence of the xlmerican or Know- 
nothing organization reached Georgia in May or June, 1854. 
Shortly afterwards the first lodges were established in Geor- 
gia. By the end of the year the American Party had become 
an important factor in Georgia politics.'^ A large portion of 
the Whig part}^ at the North had gone openl}' into the anti- 
slaver}^ camp after 1852. Another portion entered the Amer- 
ican party with the object, professedly, of causing America to 
be ruled by Americans and not by foreign immigrants or by 
Catholics. The ends of the organization were to be secured 
thiough the work of secret lodges spread over the country. 



n Federal Union, Apr. 6,1858. 

6 Ibid., Mar. 30, 1858. 

'•Ibid., Sept. 12, Dec. 2G, 1854, and Mar. 13, 1855. 



H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 12 



178 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Most Oi. the Georgia Whio-s joined the order, not because the}^ 
considered nativism to be a pressing issue, but because by so 
doing they could best oppose their old enemies, the Democrats. 

The Know-nothing movement was popular with the raidc 
and file of the Georgia Whigs, but most of the prominent 
men in the party declined to join it. Toombs voted with the 
Democrats throughout the Congres.-iional session of 1858-54, 
and in 1855 he condemned the Know-nothings, urging the 
whole South to unite for the safety of Southern rights and 
to support the ])and of patriotic Democrats at the North who 
were lighting for the observence of the Constitution. Ste- 
phens was prevented by his extreme regard for consistency 
from al)andoning his Whig colleagues quite so readily. In 
May, 1855, he announced that since so many of his former sup- 
porters had entered the Know-nothing organization, of which 
he could not approve, he would not be a candidate for reelection 
to C'Ongress. But shortly afterwards, having decided to defy 
the Know-nothings, he declared himself a candidate indepen- 
dent of all parties. He showed that one of the pledges of 
Know-nothingism was to uphold the Union, while nothing 
was said about the Constitution; therefore it was against the 
Georgia platform and supportive of abolitionism.^' Stephens, 
like Toombs, was welcomed liy the Democrats, whose ranks 
he entered, and was at once returned to Congress. 

For the gubernatorial race of 1855 three candidates entered 
the field. The Democrats nominated Herschel V. Johnson 
for a second term; the Know-nothings selected Garnett 
Andrews as their champion, and the Temperance part}" sup- 
ported B. H. Overby, a Methodist preacher who had been a 
fire-eating Whig. All three candidates stumped the State, 
but there was never any doubt of flohnson's election. The 
vote as cast in October was, for Johnson 53, -178, for Andrews 
43,222, for Over])y 6,284.^ 

It soon became evident that the Northern and Southern 
wings of the American party were out of S3nnpathy. The 
Georgia Know-nothings seem not to have been distressed 
over the fact, for their State convention declared in its plat- 
form in December, "The Territories of the United States we 
regard as the common property of all the States as coequal 



"Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 472. Federal Union, May 22, June 5, and July 17, 1855. 
h Federal Union, July 31, Mar. 13, and Oct. 16, 1855. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 179 

sovereignties, and as such open to settlement by the citizens 
of the several States with their property as matter of right. 
We repudiate, therefore, the doctrine commonly called squat- 
ter sovereignty."" This resolution was clearl}^ a l^ait to catch 
local support, for all of the leaders knew that the Northern 
wing of the party could never be brought to approve it. 

The national convention of the Know-nothings which met 
at Philadelphia in March, 1856, nominated Fillmore and Don- 
elson as its candidates, and adopted a platform containing 
nothing but platitudes. The nomination was not a popular 
one at the South, but caused numerous desertions from the 
party.* E. A. Nisbet, a leader of the Know-nothings, and 
C. J. Jenkins, an anti-Know-nothing Whig, decided to vote for 
Buchanan, because Fillmore had no chance of election, while 
in order to preserve the rights of the South/' it was necessary 
to defeat Fremont, the candidate of the newly formed Repub- 
lican party. The death of J. M. Berrien, on January 1, left 
the brilliant young orator, Benjamin H. Hill, as the only note- 
worthy leader of the Fillmore party in Georgia.'^ He, noth- 
ing daunted by his isolation, vigorously stumped the State for 
his candidate, occasionally having a brush with Toombs or 
Stephens, both of whom he accused of base desertion from the 
Whig party. 

The result of the contest in Georgia was a victory for 
Buchanan of 14,000 votes. The only counties carried by Fill- 
more were in those parts of middle Georgia where the Whigs 
had formerly been especially strong. The veterans Troup 
and Lumpkin l)oth wrote public letters from their retirement 
in support of the Democratic party.' The men who voted 
for Fillmore did so in order merely to prevent their party 
from falling to pieces, and because there was no urgent reason 
to the contraiy. In many parts of the North the American 
party abandoned its own candidate, preferring to assist in the 
advancement of the anti-slavery cause by joining the Repu))li- 
can party .'^ Fillmore accordingly received the electoral vote 
of the State of Maryland alone. 

a Federal Union, Dec. 25, 1855. 

b Ibid., Mar. 11 and July 8, 1856. 

«Ibid., Sept. 9 and 16, 1856. 

d Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 81. Federal Union, Aug. 5, 1.S56. 

e Federal Union, July 31, 1855, and Apr. 29, 1856. 

/Speech of Toombs, Federal Union, Oct. 4, 1859. 



18U AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

The crushing' defeat of 1856 came near dostroyino- the 
Georgia Know-nothing party, but during the spring of 1857 
its leaders and its editors urged that the organization be not 
abandoned/' Accordingly, a convention of the party met in 
July to prepare for the gubernatorial contest. It adopted a 
platform opposing squatter sovereignty, upholding the Georgia 
platform, condemning further agitation upon the right of 
property in slaves, and declaring that the Dred Scott decision 
was but a judicial indorsement of the position theretofore held 
by the American party of Georgia. As its candidate for the 
governorship the convention nominated B. H. Hill by acclama- 
tion.^ The platform abl^^ expressed the popular sentiments 
of the time. The candidate was by far the strongest man in 
the party, but the KnoAV-nothings knew from the tirst that 
they had no chance of success, because the Democrats had 
lived up to all that they themselves could promise, and 
furthermore because nearly all the strong politicians in the 
State were among their opponents. 

The Democratic State convention, meeting on June 21, 
adopted the two-thirds rule for nominations. The drafting 
of a platform was not necessary, for the past record of the 
party showed where it stood on all vital issues. The promi- 
nent men in the party were so numerous that a choice was 
very difficult. Nineteen ballots were cast without a majority 
for any candidate. A large committee was then appointed to 
report some method of harmonious action by the convention. 
The committee reported the name of Joseph E. Brown for 
the nomination; the naines of all other candidates were with- 
drawn, and Brow^n was given a unanimous vote.*" 

The personality of the Democratic candidate is important, 
in that it throws strong light upon the attitude of the poorer 
class of white citizens in the State. Pirown was born in 
Pickens District, S. G, in 1821, but in early youth nioved 
with his parents to Union Gounty, Ga., to a valley shut in by 
the ranges of the Blue Ridge, remote from all centers of cul- 
ture, and out of touch with the current of politics. The 
slender resources of the family rendered it necessary for the 
future governor and senator to help his father and brothers 



n Southern Recorder, April, May, and June, 1857. 

Mbid., July 14, 1857. Ft'deral Union, Tuly 14, 1857. 

c Avery, History of Georgia, p. 37. Federal Union, June 30, 1S57 



GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 181 

in the farm work. At iin early age he began to plow behind 
oxen, which were then and are now the chief motive power 
in the mountain region. With onlj^ the rudiments of educa- 
tion, 3^oung Brown set out at the age of 19 for Dr. Waddell's 
well-known school in South Carolina, carrying with him a 
yoke of steers to pay in part for tuition and board. Proving 
himself an excellent student, he afterwards was able to bor- 
row money to take a course in law at Yale College. He then 
returned, in 1846, to enter the practice of law in Cherokee 
County, in another part of the mountain district of Georgia. 

Joseph E. Brown always remained a representative of a 
hornj-handed constituency. Born and raised without the 
personal service of slaves, he was, like man}^ others in the 
same circumstances, strong in support of the institution and 
iirm in the belief that the non-slaveholding Southerners de- 
rived much benefit from the existence of slavery in their coun- 
try. His sojourn in Connecticut not changing these views, 
he soon had occasion to express them in part, as a member of 
the Georgia legislature. Speaking on February 1, 18.50, upon 
the subject of the legislation upon slaver}- then in contempla- 
tion b}^ Congress, he defended the justice of slavery, showing 
that its hardships had been greatly lightened since the colonial 
period, when the system was in existence throughout the col- 
onies. He declared that the Constitution gave Congress no 
right to a])olisli slavery in the Territories, and stated that in 
his opinion the South had surrendered valuable rights when 
the Missouri Compromise line was established. He was in 
favor of calling a State convention in order that firm ground 
might be taken for the protection of the rights of the South. '^' 

For some years before 1857, Brown held the office of judge 
of the superior court in the northern district, at the same 
time managing his farm near Canton, Ga. There is a tradi- 
tion that the committee sent to inform him of his nomination 
for the g'overnorship found the judge hard at work in the 
field gathering his crop of wheat. 

The nomination of such a man b}^ the Democratic party, 
and his subsequent election as governor with a large majority 
of votes, '^ was in its moral effect similar to the accession of 
Andrew Jackson to the Presidency in 1828. A shock to the 

a Federal Union, July 14, 1857. 

(>The vote east was, for Brown, 57,ufJ8; for Hill, 46,826; Federal Union, Oct. 20, 1857. 



182 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

aristocratic regime in Georgia/' it placed at the helm of the 
State a man who was in the closest touch with the sturdy 
yeomen, and it added to the group of official leaders a strong- 
thinker, with a new point of view and with valuable fresh 
ideas. By his arguments in the campaign and his subsequent 
able discharge of his executive duties, Governor Brown 
quickly gained for his utterances such attention throughout 
the State as was accorded ver3' few other politicians. 

The inaugural address of the new governor showed what 
might be expected of him in case any attack should be made 
upon slavery during his term of office. He stated his convic- 
tion that the State of Georgia would not remain in the Union 
if the Constitution were tampered with, and he declared his 
unalterable determination to maintain her rights and vindicate 
her honor at every hazard and with every means in his 
power.* 

The year 1858 was devoid of excitement in Georgia. It was 
a period of reflection; and reflection brought determination. 
While there was diflerence of opinion in unimportant matters, 
the people were of only one mind on the vital issues of slavery 
and State rights. If there were more than one side to either 
question the people of Georgia could not appreciate the fact. 

The great slavery issue was of course one which concerned 
the sections of the countr}^ rather than the individual States, 
and it had chiefly been so considered down to the time when 
the comparative weakness of the South in Congress became 
manifest. Aftei- that point had been reached, and after the 
abolitionists began their agitation, more and more emphasis 
came to be placed by the Southern people upon the limita- 
tions which the Constitution had laid upon the central Govern- 
ment in regard to slaver3^ The flrst direct and conscious 
connection between slaver}^ and State rights b}- a prominent 
Georgian was probably in the inaugural address of Governor 
Gilmer, delivered in November 18P>7. In it he said that on 
account of slavery and its products, "our true position is to 
stand by the powers of the States and the people as the surest 
safeguards of our rights, of liberty, and of property."*^ 
Among the people this conviction grew stronger year b}^ 
year. The slavery question was acknowledged to be a sec- 

a Avery, History of Georgia, p. 47. '> Fedcnil Union, Nov. 10, 1867. 

tNiles's Regi.ster, vol. .W, p. isi. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 183 

tional one, but the section had no constitutional standing" or 
rights, as did the States which composed it. 

The sectional feeling grew very strong. The antagonism 
between the North and the South was partially smothered by 
the compromise of 1.S.50, but flared out afresh when the Kan- 
sas question arose, and was thereafter steadil}' aggravated by 
the course of events. The enactment of laws by certain 
Northern States to prevent the operation of the f ngitive-slave 
law led to the unanimous adoption by a convention of the 
Democratic party of Georgia, in 1855, of resolutions request- 
ing the legislature to pass efficient retaliatory measures." 
Senator Toombs gave his support to the plan, advising the 
levy by each Southern State of an ad valorem tax on all 
articles offered for sale which had come from other States. 
This would foster home production and direct importation 
from abroad, and at the same time it would hurt New Eng- 
land.^ The plan was kept under popular consideration for 
some time, and though the contemplated laws were not en- 
acted, the citizens were guided in many cases by the principle 
involved. The purchase of commodities from the North, and 
even the subscription to the Northern newspapers came to be 
condemned by many as a form of paying tribute to the North 
at the expense of the South. ^ A business depression in New 
England in 1858 was partly accounted for by the stopping of 
orders by Southern merchants. Some of the Bostonians 
thought of retaliation in kind upon the South, but came to 
realize that the section had a monopoly upon all of its export 
products, and therefore could not be hurt by nonintercourse. '^ 

The development of the Free Soil organization into the more 
powerful Repul>lican party and the strengthening of the anti- 
slavery cause had the effect in the South of making radical 
policies the more popular. Even conservative Southerners 
did not condemn Mr. Brooks for chastising Mr. Sumner. 
They regretted that the Senate Chamber had been selected as 
the place of punishment, but the general sentiment was that 
" while Massachusetts chooses to be represented in the United 

"Federal Union, Juno 12, 1855. 

b Letter of Toombs, Federal Union, Dec. 23, 185C. See also editorial in Federal 
Union, Apr. 13, 1858. 
c Federal Union, Feb. 9, 1858. 
'/Editorial of Boston Herald, reprinted in Federal Union, Sei)t. 21, 1858. 



18 J: AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOOIATIOIN'. 

States Senate by l:»lacko-uards, she ought not to complain if 
the}' receive a bhickg-uard's reward."" 

From the Southern standpoint the institution of domestic 
servitude was more firmh' established in 1858 than ever be- 
fore. The sugo-estion that slavery was not ethically right was 
frowned down and denied utterance.^ The number of slaves 
in Georgia was almost equal to the number of white persons, 
and their value as property w^as considerably greater than that 
of all the land in the State, with town and citv property in- 
cluded/ The market value of slaves increased rapidly in the 
years just preceding secession. Throughout the preceding 
decade or two the rule for pricing slaves had been to multiply 
the price of a pound of cotton by 10,000 — e. g. , if cotton sold 
at 12 cents, an able-bodied negro would be worth $1,200, But 
that rule was now abandoned. The price of slaves rose 25 per 
cent in three years. '^^ Well-grown negro boys were sold in 
Milledgeville in 1860 for $2,000 each.' ^ 

The project of emancipation, even with compensation to the 
masters, found very little favor in Georgia.-^" Several plans 
were ])ronght f orwiird to strengthen the local support of the in- 
stitution which might have been adopted had they been thought 
necessary for the purpose. One of these was that one slave 
should be included in the homestead legally exempt from lev}^ 
or sale, in order to encourage every family to have one slave. ^ 
But even without such legislation the poorer whites were 
rightly thought to be, in thousands of cases, as sturdy de- 
fenders of the institution as those who owned slaves.''' A few 
individuals favored the reopening of the slave trade;' but, as 
a Georgia editor very apth^ said, "the Southern people have 
no more idea of reviving the slave trade than they have of 
admitting their slav(^s to the rights and privileges of citizen- 
ship. "•'■ 



"Editorial in Federal Union, June 3, 1850. 

f' Federal Union, Aug. 1-1, 18ob. 

("Georgia tax returns, 1856: Total value of slaves, S210,5H8,(i:!l; loial value of land, 
1157,899,600; Federal Union, Feb. 17, ls.".7. 

fi Federal Union, Jan. 17, 1800. 

'■Ibid., June 12, 1800. 

/Ibid., Feb. 1, 18.59. 

!/Ibid., Dec. 30, 185C. 

''Editorial, Federal Union, Aug. 28, 1800. Speech of Senator Tverson, Federal Union, 
July 26, 1859, Letter of Governor Brown, Federal Union, Dec. 11, 1S05. 

''Messageof Governor Adam.s to legislature of South Carolina, Federal Union, De<'. 2, 
1856. Letters of Dr. Lee, of Athens, Ga., Federal Union, Mar. 1, 18.59. 

j Federal Union, Dec. 2, 1856. 



GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 185 

The people of the South of course realized that a veiy 
strong cauipaig-n was being made against slavery, but they 
were convinced that it could nev^er be peacefully successful. 
A work on slavery, showing much thought and research, was 
published by T. R. R. Cobb, in 1858, which may be taken as 
authoritative upon the Southern side. His conclusion as to 
emancipation was that, "until the white race is exterminated 
or driven off, it can never be forcibly etfected. Amalgama- 
tion to any great extent is a moral impossibility. Coloniza- 
tion on the coast of Africa could l)e effected only at immense 
cost, and at the sacrifice of the lives of at least one-fourth of 
the emigrants. So long as climate and disease and the 
profitable planting of cotton, rice, tobacco, and cane make 
the negro the only laborer inhabiting safely our Southern 
savannas and prairies, just so long will he be a slave to the 
white man. Whenever the white laborer can successfull}^ 
compete with him in these productions and occupy this soil, 
the negro will either be driven through the Isthmus to become 
amalgamated with the races of South America, or ho will fall 
a victim to disease and neglect, begging bread at the white 
man's door."^' Mr. Cobb's attempt to foretell the future of 
the negro was, as he himself said, only a conjecture. He 
could not foresee the abolition of slavery within the next 
decade, but from his study of the characteristics and the con- 
dition of the race he could have assured the North that 
sweeping emancipation would rather complicate than sim- 
plify the negro question. 

The period of quiet which preceded the storm extended 
beyond the middle of the year 1859. Mr. Stephens, in a 
speech to his constituents on July 2, called attention to the 
lack of political agitation and to the general prosperity of 
the State and of the whole countrj^, and stated that he was 
no longer a candidate for Congressional honors.'' Mr. 
Stephens, however, appreciated the numerous indications 
which foreboded the early arrival of evil times, and his con- 
viction of his own inability to avert them was so strong as to 
be the true cause of his retirement from Congress.'' 

The first renewed rumbling of the coming storm burst upon 
Georgia in a speech of Senator Alfred Iverson, at Griftin, 

" Cobb on Slavery, p. CCXXI. 

b Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 637. Federal Union, July 19, 1859. 

e Letter of Stephens to Dr. Z. P. Landrum; Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. (ids. 



186 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Ga., on Jul}' 1-i, 1859. He proclaimed the powerlessness of 
the Northern Democracy, and the extreme probability of the 
election of a free-soil President in 1860, declaring that in such 
an emergency he would favor an independent confederacy of 
the Southern States. He urged the South at once to repudiate 
all compromises, and to hurl square defiance at the aboli- 
tionists in every possible way.^ This speech caused great 
controversy in the State, which lasted through several months. 
The prevailing opinion seemed to be that Mr. Iverson had 
exaggerated the evils, but the news of John Brown's raid led 
to a very general acceptance of the truth of what he had said. 

A slave insurrection was the one thing most dreaded by the 
Southern people. The improbability of its occurrence did 
not lessen its theoretical horrors. Information concerning 
plots which were sometimes unearthed was spread abroad as 
carefully as possible, so as to encourage vigilance without 
arousing' excitement. The newspapers generally avoided the 
subject, but occasionally referred to it in order to prevent 
the complete decay of the patrol system,* toward which there 
was a very strong tendency, due to the indulgent and easy- 
going disposition of the Southern people. 

The details of John Brown's exploit were quickly made 
known to everyone in Georgia by the electric telegraph, the 
local press, and word of mouth. The news was of an intensely 
exciting character, but it was necessary to avoid all manifes- 
tations of frenzy. As soon as the insane folly of Brown's 
scheme became apparent, as well as its hideously criminal 
character, the tierce hatred in the South toward its perpetra- 
tors and abettors gave place to a widespread and more reso- 
lute hatred than had existed before toward all antislavery men 
at the North. It was recognized by conservative men that 
the whole of the North was by no means abolitionist, but the 
numerous demonstrations on the day of Brown's execution 
and the popular canonization of the fanatic criminal over- 
shadowed in the Southern vision the Union meetings which 
were held in the chief Northern cities.' 

A substantial result of the John Brown incident was the 
strengthening of the conviction that the South must achieve 

"Avery, History of Georgia, p. 104. Federal Union, .Inly 2Ci, isri'.i. 
^Federal Union, Dec. 23,18,56. 
pibid., Dec. 27, 1869. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 187 

unity. It" the non-slaveholders in Georoia had at any former 
time been lukewarm in support of slavery, their strenuous hos- 
tilit}' to forcible abolition was no longer a matter of doubt. 

The non-slaveholding class continued to repose their chief 
trust in Joseph E. Brown, who, from the ability shown in his 
discharge of the executive duties, had won great popularity 
with all people who appreciated efficient government.'* As the 
Democratic nominee for reelection in 1859 he was opposed by 
a candidate put forth by the traditional enemies of the Demo- 
cratic party, but was elected governor by a very large major- 
it}^ of votes. In his inaugural address for the second term 
he took much the same position that Senator Iverson had 
adopted in his speech of four months previous. 

He voiced the opinion, which had then become very gen- 
eral, that the great contest of 1860, which might decide the 
fate of the Union of the States, would be fought between "the 
Black Republican and the National Democratic parties." He 
regarded the Democratic party as the last hope of the Union. 
Should it be broken down, the rights of the South denied, 
and her equality in the Union destroyed, he declared his con- 
viction that the section should strike for independence.^ As 
mere words this address was nothing unusual. What gave it 
importance was the well-known character of the governor as 
a man absolutely serious and determined in any policy once 
undertaken. His annual message, also delivered in Novem- 
ber, 18.59, was squarely in line with the inaugural address. 

In former messages Brown, like his predecessors, had 
advised the legislature to take steps to improve the State 
militia,^ Imt the legislature had paid no attention to the mat- 
ter. The militia in Georgia, as in other Southern States, had 
fallen sadly into neglect. The old-fashioned public drills and 
musters had so long been discontinued as to be known from 
the tales of the old citizens only as a farcical and valueless 
relic of colonial and revolutionary times.'' The governor 
now advised a tax upon all citizens not members of military 
companies, the proceeds of the tax to be devoted to the erec- 
tion of a foundry for arms, so that Georgia would be inde- 

" Southern Recorder, July 12, 1859. 
6 Federal Union, Nov. 8, 1859. 

c Federal Union, Nov. 6, 1855 (Governor Johnson). Federal Union, Nov. 9, 18.58 
(Governor Brown), 
f? Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 103. 



188 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

pendent should an emergency arise/' The le^'islature was 
still not ready to act upon all of the governor's advice, l)ut 
Brown was able through his influence to develop much enthu- 
siasm in the State for the military service, and to prepare the 
people for swift action when the crisis should arrive. 

The general outlines of the Presidential contest of 18()0 
were as follows: The Democratic national convention met at 
Charleston April '20, 1860. Its connnittee on platform made 
two reports, the one of the maiority declaring that the United 
States Oovernment was l)ound to protect in the Territories all 
the property of every citizen immigi'ating from any State of 
the Union, and that slavery must legally exist in every terri- 
tory until the organization of a State government. The 
minority report set forth that, whereas differences existed in 
the Democratic party as to the powers and duties of Congress 
ovei" slavery in the Territories, resolved, that the party would 
stand by the Supreme Court in the matter. The Northei'n 
delegations secured the adoption of the minority report, 
whereupon most of the Southerners, in vic^v of the disagree- 
ment in th<> party, and with the determination to establish the 
principle of the Dred Scot decision, followed William L. 
Yancey and tln^ Alabama delegation in a secession from the 
conventio)!. Soon afterwards the remaining delegates, failing 
to nominate a candidate, adjourned to meet again at Balti- 
more. In the adjourned session Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was 
nominat(ul for the Pr(\sidency, and, Mr. P'itzpatrick declining, 
Mr. II. V. Johnson of Georgia was selected as his compan- 
ion on the tick(>t. A second secession of Southern delegations 
occurred at l>altimore, leading to the nomination by the com- 
bined secedcrs in their conventions at Baltimoi'e and at Rich- 
mond of J. C Breckenridge, of Kentucky, and Joseph I^ane, 
of Oregon as President and Vice-President. 

]M(^anwhil(^ the R(^})ublican convention had nominated Lin- 
coln and Ilandin, and had declared not only that slavery did 
not exist in the Territories, but that Congress could not legal- 
ize it in them. Still a fourth ticket, bearing the names of 
Bell and Everett, was put in the field by the "Constitutional 
Union "" party. Avith the Federal Constitution as tln^ oidy plank 
in its platfc^rm. 

The split in the Democratic party was deeply regretted in 



"Fodcral Union, Nov. S, 1859; FielckT, Life of Brown, p. 101. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 189 

Georgia, but the responsibility for it was I:iid at the door of 
the Doug-las Democrats. All of the local leaders were inter- 
rogated for their approval or disapproval of the bolting of 
the Georgia delegation at Charleston and for advice to the 
party in its dilemma. Their replies were published for the 
guidance of the people." 

Mr. Stephens, lamenting the disruption of the convention, 
thought that the South had done wrong in abandoning its 
former position favoring non-intervention with slavery in the 
Territories. He relied upon sober second thought to deter- 
mine whether Georgia should be represented at Baltimore and 
what course of action the delegation should follow. 

Mr. Herschel V. Johnson wrote that though the Union was 
not an object to be idolized, it should be preserved as long as 
the interests of the South did not distinctly re([uire its aban- 
donment. Since the overthrow of the Democratic party 
would be a long stride toward dissolution, that contingency 
should be avoided. 1'he South should therefore adhere to its 
policy favoring non-intervention, for insistence in its new 
demand would bring no special advant{H,^e. Init would antago- 
nize many Northern D(^nlocrats. He urged that delegates be 
sent to Baltimore instructed to preserve the integrity of the 

party. '^ 

Governor Brown was of the opinion that the masses North 
and South were willing to have mutual justice done, and he 
hoped for harmony at Baltimore. He held that the people of 
the South htid the right to demand of Congress the enactment 
of laws for the protection of slave property in the Territories, 
l)ut the expediency of such a demand was questionable. He 
advised that Georgia send delegates to Baltimore, where it 
still might be possible to agree upon a compromise plank and 
an acceptable candidate. 

Mr. Howell Cobb explained that there were two points of 
ditierence at Charleston— the platfoiin and the candidate. 
The fifteen Southern States, together with the two Democratic 
States on the Pacific coast, agreed upon a platform which 
recognized the equality of the Southern States, claiming for 
their citizens with their property the same protection which 
the laws of the land extended to the citizens of the non- 



o Most of these letters were printed in the Federal Union May 2-2, 1860. 
h Federal Union, May 29, 1800. 



l90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

slave-holding- States and their property; the remaining sixteen 
States, with their superior numbers in the convention, refuse'd 
to recognize these principles, but adopted an ambiguous plat- 
form with the intention of nominating a candidate know^n to 
be hostile to the Southern contention. 

The letter of Mr. Toombs was the most radical of the series. 
He said that the proceedings of the convention had been very 
interesting, but had caused him no apprehension. In the 
developments at Charleston he saw positive evidence of the 
advance of sound constitutional principles; it might not have 
been prudent to present so iiuich truth on the slavery issue as 
was contained in the majority platform, but since it had been 
so presented it ought to be firmly supported. While he 
approved the secession of the Georgia delegation, he thought 
that, in view of the overtures of the New York delegation, the 
State should be represented at Baltimore. Such action would 
involve no sacrifice of principle, since the convention of 
seceders could still ])e held at Richmond. Mr. Toombs was not 
frightened at the prospect of disunion. '* Our greatest danger 
to-da}^" he wrote in conclusion, "is that the Union will sur- 
vive the Constitution." 

The State Democratic convention, which met at Milledge- 
ville on June 4, approved the Charleston secession l)}^ a vote 
of two-thirds, and reappointed the original Georgia delega- 
tion to attend the session at Baltimore, with instructions to 
secede if the adjourned convention should refuse to protect 
slavery in the Territories. But Ex-Governor Johnson led a 
body of bolters from the Milledgeville convention, which 
appointed a difi'erent delegation to Baltimore with more mod- 
erate instructions.^' The Baltimore convention resolved to 
recognize both delegations from Georgia, giving to each one- 
half of the full vote of the State. The regular delegation 
refused to accept this, and withdrew to join the conventions 
of the bolters in Baltimore and in Richmond.'' The Johnson 
delegation accordingly cast the full vote of Georgia in the 
regular convention at Baltimore. 

The remnant in Georgia of the American part\', calling 
itself the Constitutional Union party, held its convention in 
Milledgeville on May 2 to select and instruct a delegation to 

" Butler, History of Maeon, Ga., p. 228. 
''Letter of the regular Georgia delegation, Federal I'liion, July U), 1800. 



GEOKGTA AND STATE EIGHTS. 191 

the general convention of their party at Baltimore. Resolu- 
tions were adopted for the guidance of the delegates, or more 
probably for local effect, which declared the right of propcrt}^ 
in slaves, the obligation on the part of the Federal Govern- 
ment to protect slave property in the Territories, and the un- 
constitutionality of any State legislation against the fugitive 
slave law." 

The general convention refused to adopt a vigorous plat- 
form of any kind, but hoped by the example of its own placid- 
ness to relieve the country from the turbulence and strain of 
the times. Bell and Everett were very suitable candidates to 
make the campaign upon the spiritless platfoi-m of the party. 

Of course, Lincoln received no support whatever in Georgia. 
He was considered a negligible factor in the local campaign. 
The strongest argument in favor of any one of the other candi- 
dates was that he was the most likeh^ to defeat the Republican 
party. Aside from Yancey, of Alabama, the favorite cam- 
paign orators of the South were Toombs in support of Breck- 
inridge, Stephens for Douglas, and Benjamin H. Hill for Bell.'' 
All of the hotspur leaders in the State were strongly in favor 
of Breckinridge because of his outspoken platform. Very 
many were so irritated by the long-continued uncertaintv that 
they were determined to have a satisfactory President or dis- 
solve the Union forthwith. 

The Douglas and the Bell partisans were very much akin in 
their policies. Anxious to preserve the rights of the South in 
the Union, and to remove slavery from politics, each faction 
struggled on independently, hoping against hope that the 
Republicans would be defeated. Several efforts were made 
to fuse the two parties in Georgia without entire success, 
though many Douglas men probably decided at the eleventh 
hour to vote for the Bell electors.'' 

Early in October it became known to be practically certain 
that Lincoln would be elected. '^ From that time began the 
agitation, led at first by Breckinridge men, looking to the 
secession of Georgia at an early date. The popular vote cast 
in Georgia was for Breckinridge 51,893, for Bell 12,855, for 
Douglas 11,580. The result of the contest at large became 
known very quickly after the ballot boxes were closed. The 



"Federal Union, May 15, 1S60. <• Federal Union, Oct. 30, ISGO- 

bDu Bose, Life of Yancy, p. 512. dibid., Oct. 2, 1860. 



192 AMEKICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. 

news that their worst feur.s were realized caused depression 
for a time in Georgia, but dread quickl}^ g-av^e way to defiance, 
and hesitation was replaced by resohition/' Georgians of 
every faction had the fellow feeling of a common defeat, and 
they determined to waste their strength no more in fruitless 
dissensions, but to work, and if need be fight, together in the 
patriotic cause/' The hearts of thousands upon thousands of 
men, women, and children were thrilled with the motto, 
"Georgia expects all of her sons to do their duty." 



a Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 171. ''Federal Union, Nov. 13, 1860, ff. 



CHAPTER VIII -THE SECESSION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. 



The idea of .secession from the Union of the States is prac- 
tically as old as the Federal Constitution itself. It was 
occasionally alluded to as a possibility in the early years 
under the present frame of o-overnment; but the first occasion 
upon which the question of the advisabilit}' of secession was 
seriously discussed by any important body was the meeting of 
the Hartford convention, composed of delegates from the 
New England States, at the close of 1814. 

Secession as a remedy for the ills of the South was first 
mooted in Georgia about the 3'ear 1849. The compromise of 
1850 tended to check the discussion, but the theoretical priv- 
ilege of secession was one of the contentions of the local 
Southern Rights party in 1851. Earl}^ in 1854 Gen. James 
N. Bethune established the "Corner Stone" at Columbus, Ga., 
which for some length of time had the distinction of being the 
only newspaper in the South which advised the immediate 
dissolution of the Union. '^^ From the beginning of the Kansas 
struggle, secession as a last resort for the protection of 
Southern rights was never completely out of the contempla- 
tion of Southern statesmen. Hiram Warner, in accepting a 
Democratic nomination to Congress in 1855, expressed his 
approbation of withdrawal from the Union should it become 
necessary in defending the rights of the State of Georgia.* 
Herschel V. Johnson, while governor of Georgia, wrote in 
1856 that the election of Fremont as President would drive 
the Southern States to dissolve the Union, while Howell Cobb, 
in discussing the same contingency, declared that he would 
hasten home, in the event, to take the stump for immediate 
secession.^ 

William L. Yancey, of Alabama, was first and last the most 



a Federal Union, Feb. 8, 1854. & Federal Union, July 3, 1855. 

cDuBose, Life of Yancey, p. 333. 



H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 13 



193 



194 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

determined advocate of secession, and was of great impor- 
tance in directing sentiment in Georgia. He was in the lead 
of the radical movement in 1850, and was among the last to be 
reconciled to the Georgia platform. In the following years 
he laid aside his secession arguments to join in the struggle 
for Southern rights in the Union, yet he continued to look to 
a refuge in ease of tyranny on the part of the North, and we 
find him in 1858 organizing the "League of United Southern- 
ers,'' the memliers of which, while keeping up their old part}' 
relations on all other questions, were to hold the Southern 
issue paramount.'' 

The rapid growth of the Republican party led all Southern- 
ers to become familiar with the idea of secession as a last 
recourse in case the antislavery party should ever gain con- 
trol of the Government. We have alread}^ seen that for sev- 
eral years the Presidential contest of 1860 was expected to 
bring on a crisis which would necessitate heroic measures. 
Immediately after Lincoln's election preparations were set on 
foot to meet the emergency. 

The chief magistrate of Georgia was in the very forefront 
of the aggressively defensive Southern movement. On 
November 7, 1860, Governor Brown sent a special message 
to the legislature advising against the projected conven- 
tion of the slaveholding States on the ground that very few 
States would be represented in it, 1iut urging ettective measures 
on the part of Georgia without the delaj' Avhich a Southern 
conference would make necessary. He condemned the duplic- 
ity of the Northern people in bringing the slaves to America 
and afterwards demanding that the Southern people liberate 
them, make them citizens, and intermarry with them. He 
stated that the Constitution was a compact, and that one of 
the conditions of its adoption had been the agreement by each 
State to deliver up fugitive slaves. Showing the breach of 
this agreement, he advised that the governor be empowered 
to use the military in making reprisals on the public or pri- 
vate property of the offending States, and furth(U', that the 
citizens of such States be excluded from the protection of the 
laws of Georgia. He recommended the calling of a conven- 
tion of the State and the appropriation of |1, 000,000 as a 
military fund for the ensuing year, to l)e used in putting the 



a Letter of W. L. Yancey to James Slaughter, June 15, 1858; Federal Union, Aug. 3, 1858. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 195 

State in a defensive condition as swiftly as it could be done/' 
While deliberating- upon the advice in the governor's special 
message, the legislature requested several of the most distin- 
guished men of the State to speak before the assembly upon 
the condition of the Republic. Accordingly, on the night of 
November 13, Mr. Toombs made a very powerful address 
before the two houses in favor of immediate secession.'^ On 
the following night Mr. Stephens replied to Mr. Toombs in 
a speech which, on account of the very great respect in which 
the people of every section held the speaker, as well as for 
the merits of the address itself, attracted great attention 
throughout the country,'" 

In beginning his address, Mr. Stephens expressed his opin- 
ion that the South as well as the North was to be blamed for 
the existing state of the Union. Discussing the actual pre- 
dicament, he said that the election of no man, however hostile 
to the South, would justify the disruption of the Republic, 
since the constitutional checks upon the President must pre- 
vent his doing any great mischief. If there should be any 
distinct attempt to carry out the Republican policy of exclud- 
ing slave property by act of Congress from the Territories, 
and so to destroy the perfect equality of all the States, Mr. 
Stephens declared he would be second to no one in advocacy 
of resistance to the last extremity; but meanwhile he urged 
sober deliberation and solemn remonstrance, followed w^here 
necessary by reprisals against the States which had broken 
the fugitive-slave compact. He therefore advised the sum- 
mons of a convention of the people of Georgia and a con- 
ference with the neighboring States to secure conservative 
action on the part of the whole South. If these means should 
fail to check and remedy the evils of the South, then, and 
only then, should a united appeal be made to the god of bat- 
tles. "My position, then, in conclusion," he said, "is for 
the maintenance of the honor, the rights, the equality, the 
security, and the glory of my native State in the Union, if 
possible; but if these can not be maintained in the Union, 
then I am for their maintenance at all hazards out of it. 

« Federal Union, Nov. 13, 1860. 

6 A. H. Stephens, Constitutional View of the War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 234. 

e Rhodes, History of the United States, vol. 3, p. 210. For correspondence between 
Lincoln and Stephens arising from this speech, see Cleveland, Life of Stephens, pp. 151 
to 155. 



196 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Next to the honor and glory of Georgia, the land of my 
birth, 1 hold the honor and glory of our common country."^' 

The convictions of the most conservative Southerners were 
ably expressed in this speech, but it failed to sway the multi- 
tude because the most favorable result from the pursuance of 
the policy outlined would probably be the continuance of the 
unsettled and objectionable state of affairs. Every outspoken 
man in Georgia was in favor of resistance,^ and most of them 
thought the sooner it was made the better it would be for the 
interests of the South. Toombs, Brown, and the two Cobbs 
were the spokesmen for the policy which was clearly destined 
to carry the State. Farmers prepared to plant larger grain 
crops than usual in the spring because of the warlike outlook.'' 
Homespun clothing was worn at social gatherings to show a 
patriotic independence of the manufacturing States."^^ A wave 
of militar}^ ardor led to the spontaneous organization of 
infantry and cavalry companies in all sections of Georgia. 

The legislature was far from lukewarm. Its members were 
gratified at the tenor of the governor's special message; they 
listened with enthusiasm to the arguments of Toombs, T. R. R. 
Cobb, H. R. Harris, and others for immediate secession, and 
they applauded to the echo the declaration of Mr. Stephens 
that any policy which the sovereign people of the State 
should adopt in the emergency would conmiand his own 
hearty support. 

The most important of the recommendations of the special 
message were speedil}' embodied in legislative enactments. 
A million dollars was appropriated to be used by the governor 
in the preparation of the State for defense, the outlay to be 
met by the issue of bonds to run for twenty years, at 6 per 
cent.* After listening, on November 17, to an address from 
Hon. W. L. Harris, who, as commissioner from the State' of 
Mississippi, appealed to the State rights actions in the history 
of Georgia and asked that the State should join his own in 
taking efficient measures for the safety of the South, the 
legislature directed the call of a convention of the sovereign 
people of Georgia, since the right was theirs to determine the 

"Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 279. Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 694. 

l> Southern Recorder, Dec. 4, 1860. 

(■Federal Union, Dec. 11, 1860. 

dibid., Jan. 1, 1860. 

e Approved Nov. 16, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 49. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 197 

mode, measure, and time of the resistance which in the general 
opinion had manifestly become necessary/' The act required 
the governor to order the election on January 2, 1861, of 
delegates, who should assemble on January 16 in the State 
capitol. Each county entitled to two members in the house 
of representatives should elect three delegates to the conven- 
tion, and each count}' entitled to one member should send two 
delegates. Full powers w^ere given the convention to redress 
all the grievances of the State as a member of the Union. 
In order to insure the presence in the convention of the ablest 
men of the State, a subsequent act ordered the adjournment, 
during its deliberations, of all the State courts.^ A further 
defensive measure authorized the governor to accept the 
services of not more than 10,000 troops of the three arms, 
and to equip and discipline them for service as infantry, cav- 
alry, and artillery, and also to furnish arms to volunteer 
companies in the State and to encourage their formation.'^ 

A set of resolutions approved December 19 described the 
state of things which was responsible for the steps already 
taken })y the legislature and for those expected to be taken 
by the convention. A large portion of the non-slaveholding 
States, they declared, had for many years shown a fanatical 
spirit bitterly hostile to the Southern States, and had finally 
organized a political party for the avowed purjwse of destro^^- 
ing the institution of slavery, and consequently spreading 
ruin and desolation in ever}^ portion of the country where it 
existed. This spirit of fanaticism had ])ecome allied with a 
long-harl)orcd design to wield the taxing power of the Gov- 
ernment in a way to protect the interests of the North, and 
also to appropriate the common Territories of the United 
States to the exclusive use of Northern inmiigration, so as to 
render the power of the section irresistible. These designs 
had attained such ascendency as to combine a large majority 
of the Northern people in a sectional party, which had just 
elected to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency candidates 
pledged in the most solemn manner to wield all the power 
and influence of the Government to accomplish its purposes. 
In order that these reprehensible designs might be counter- 

a Approved Nov. 21, 18G0; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 26. 
6 Approved Dee. 19, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 240. 
c Approved Dec. 18, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, pp. W, 52. 



198 AMP^RICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

acted to the best efi'ect, the legislature advised that should 
any or all of the Southern States withdraw from the Union 
and resume their sovereignt\", such States should form a con- 
federacy and adopt as a frame of government the Constitu- 
tion of the United States so altered and amended as to suit 
the new state of affairs/' 

The spirit of the messages of Governor Brown was exactly 
that with which most Georgians agreed. After the call of a 
convention had been enjoined upon the executive, the personal 
opinions of the governor were requested by a group of citi- 
zens. The letter of advice to electors of delegates, which 
accordingly appeared on December 7, was considered to be 
a complete reply to Mr. Stephens's speech of November 14. 
In Mr. Brown's view, Mr. Lincoln was a mere instrument in 
the hands of the great fanatical abolitionist party, under the 
control of which the whole Government would soon be 
brought. He said that the triumph of the Northern section 
upon a platform of avowed hostility to Southern rights 
afforded ample justification for withdrawal; submission to the 
inauguration of Lincoln he firmly believed would result in 
the total abolition of slavery and the utter ruin of the South 
within twenty-five years. Branching into a special plea to the 
poorer class of whites, he prophesied that the abolition of 
slavery would effect their complete misery and degradation. 
Emancipation would necessarily be accomplished by the pur- 
chase of the slaves by the (Tovernment. The cost of the four 
and a half million slaves in the South would amount to two 
and a quarter l)illion dollars, to raise which the taxation must 
be extremely severe. The colonization of the free negroes 
would also l)e enormously expensive, but if the}^ were to 
remain in the South the condition of the poor white would 
be dreadful. The former slaveow^ners would soon acquire 
possession of all the land; the poor white nmst become a 
tenant or a day laborer, and, in competition with the negro, 
must descend to the lowest standard of living; there would 
be legal, economic, and social equality of the races, with 
the prospect of intermarriage. The people of the mountains 
also, the governor continued, had a vital interest in the 
question. Thousands of freed negroes would remove from 
the seacoast, and would soon be plundering and stealing in 

a Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 238. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 199 

North Georgia as elsewhere. Probably one-fourth of the 
negro population would have to be kept in jail all the time. 
Returning to the general issue, Mr. Brown continued: "My 
honest convictions are that we can never again live in peace 
with the Northern abolitionists, unless we can have new con- 
stitutional guaranties, which I do not believe the people of 
the Northern States will ever give while we remain together 
in the Union. Their opinion is that the cotton States will 
always compromise away their rights, and submit for the sake 
of peace." The secession of the cotton States before Lin- 
coln's inauguration might lead to Northern concessions and to 
reunion. Secession would probably not bring on a war, he 
concluded, for President Buchanan had recently declared that 
the General Government had no power to coerce a seceding 
State. On the other hand, the submission to wrongs might 
necessitate a war to redress those wrongs in the future. "■ 

Another document which had influence in the cause of inde- 
pendence was a letter of Mr. Howell Cobb, dated at Washing- 
ton, December 6. It reached the people of Georgia, together 
with the news of Mr. Cobb's resignation from Buchanan's 
Cabinet, soon after the publication of Mr. Brown's letter of 
advice. It proclaimed that the Union established by the 
fathers, which was one of equality, justice, and fraternity, 
would be supplanted on the 4th of March by a Union of sec- 
tionalism and hatred — the one worthy of the support and 
devotion of freemen, the other only possible at the cost of 
Southern honor, safety, and independence.'' Mr. Cobb soon 
afterwards arrived in person to stump the northeastern part of 
the State for secession. 

In order to rally the opposition party, Mr. Stephens 
arranged a meeting of the members of the general assembly, 
liftj'-two in number, who were opposed to immediate secession. 
Resolutions were adopted asking for a convention of the 
Southern States, and advising voters to require pledges from 
the candidates for the Georgia convention that they would 
oppose secession unless all other measures of safety should 
have failed. These " cooperationists " proceeded to make a 
campaign for a demand on the part of the united South for a 
guarantee of its rights, which failing, would be followed with 

"Federal Union, Dec. 11, 18G0. 

''S. Boykin, Memorial Volume of Howell Cobb, p. 31, referring to New York Tribune, 
Dec. 21, I860. 



200 AMERICAN HISTOKTCAL ASSOCIATION. 

a formal dissolution of the Union and a division of th(^ common 
property/' 

Mr. Stephens saw that his following was of considerable 
strength, but felt that the odds were against him.^ The cur- 
rent against which he fought was further strengthened by a 
letter addressed b}^ the Southern Congressmen to their con- 
stituents, stating that all hope of saving the Union by legisla- 
tion was gone and that the honor, safet}^ and independence of 
the Southern people required the organization of a Southern 
Confederacy after the separate withdrawal of the States 
from the Union.'' 

Even more powerful was a ringing dispatch of Senator 
Toombs, who had returned to Washington after making his 
plea for immediate secession at Milledgeville on November 13. 
The anxiety which Congress showed at the recent startling- 
events had led him to write a public letter to the effect that 
there was still a possibility of an agreement between the sec- 
tions, and therefore inunediate secession was not imperative. '^^ 
But he quickly reverted to his former position. On Decem- 
ber 23 he telegraphed to the Savannah Morning News a dis- 
patch to the people of Georgia. Giving a brief account of 
the refusal of the Republicans in the Senate committee of 
thirteen to agree to Crittenden's resolutions or to an}^ others 
of a similar kind, he proclaimed as if from a rostrum within 
the hearing of every citizen of the State: "I tell you upon 
the faith of a true man that all further looking to the North 
for security for your constitutional rights in the Union ought 
to be instantly abandoned. It is fraught with nothing but 
ruin to yourselves and to posterity. Secession b}^ the Ith 
of March next should be thundered from the ballot box by 
the unanimous voice of Georgia on the 2d of Januar}^ next. 
Such a voice will be your best guaranty for liberty, securitj^, 
tranquillity, and glory."'' 

Veterans in statecraft and novices in the political arena 
added their persuasions to swell the triumph of the sectional 
cause. T. R. R. Cobb," in his maiden political speech, pleaded 
with the legislature to carry the State out of the Union with- 

rt Southern Recorder. Dec. 25, 1860. 

b Letter of Stephen.s to G. T. Curtis, Nov. 30, 1800; ClevclaiHl, T>ifc of Stcidicus, p. 1,^9. 

f Federal Union, Dec. 25, 1860. 

''Letter of Toombs, dated Dee. 13, 1800; Southern Recorder, Dee. 25, 1860. 

e Federal Union, Jan. 1, 1S61. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 201 

out waiting for a convention ;^^ Wilson Lumpkin wrote from 
hi.s retirement advising separate State secession and the forma- 
tion of a Southern Confederacy. "The idea of forcing a 
State back in the Union," he said, "is cpiite too preposterous 
to merit refutation."'^ 

When the second day of January arrived, the voters of 
Georgia had been fully instructed as to the emergency. In 
most of the counties there were two sets of candidates — the 
one in favor of immediate secession, the other opposed to 
immediate secession. The opposition was further divided 
into those who favored secession after the failure of a last 
united effort for Southern rights in the Union — the " coopera- 
tionists" — and those wdio did not consider secession at any 
time to be the best remedy for the grievances felt. There 
were practically none who denied the right of the State to 
secede if it should see tit to do so. 

In every county the foremost citizens stood as candidates 
for the convention, and among the candidates those who were 
held in greatest esteem for strength of judgment were, as a 
rule, elected, for the people knew that party lines were at 
last destro3"ed, and in many cases they thought it better to 
delegate a strong man, without requiring pledges, than to 
rely upon their own weaker judgments without the benefit of 
the debates in the convention. 

After the middle of December the secession of all the cotton 
States was held as certain. On the first of January Mr. 
Toombs telegraphed from Washington that the vacancies in 
Buchanan's Cabinet, resulting from the withdrawal of the 
Southern members, had been filled by the appointment of 
enemies of the South, which meant that the policy of coercion 
was already adopted by the Administration. He warned the 
State that Fort Pulaski, at the ruouth of the Savannah River, 
would very soon be fully manned by Federal troops.^ 

On the very next day Governor Brown issued orders to 
the colonel of the First Regiment of Georgia Volunteers, 
directing him to descend the river from Savannah, to occupy 
the fort, and hold it until the convention should decide con- 
cerning its disposal. Accordingly, on Januar}^ 3, Colonel 
Lawton took possession of Fort Pulaski in the name of the 

a Butler, History of Macon, Ga., p. 235. 

!) Federal Union, Jan. 1, 1861. 

c Savannah Morning News, Jan. 3, 1861. 



202 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

State of Georgia." There may have been some Georgians 
who disapproved of this proceeding, but the citizens of 
Savannah considered the seizure of the fort so necessary that 
the failure of prompt action by the governor would have l)een 
remedied by a spontaneous movement of the people.'^ The 
United States arsenal at Augusta was not seized before the 
actual secession of the State, because although, unlike Fort 
Pulaski, it had a garrison, it was not in ready access from the 
North, but must continue to be at the mercy of the State 
forces. 

The convention of the people of Georgia was called to order 
on January 16, 1861, in accordance with the governor's proc- 
lamation of November 21. With the exception of one man, 
who was then on his deathbed, every delegate was in attend- 
ance. It was without doubt the most distinguished body of 
men which had ever assembled in Georgia. Every Georgian 
of political prominence was a member, with the exception of 
ffos. E. Brown, Howell Cobb, and C. J. Jenkins, while these 
gentlemen were invited to seats on the floor of the convention. 
Of the 297 delegates, there were not four whose names were 
not of pure English, Scotch, or Irish origin. It would not 
have been possible to assemble in one hall, by an}" method 
of selection, a more truh^ representative bod}^ of the best 
intelligence of Georgia. 

The tirst two da3's were devoted to the organization of the 
convention and to the reading of communications from the 
already independent States of South Carolina and Alabama. 
In a secret session of January 18 Mr. Nisbet oflered the 
following resolutions as a test in the matter of secession: 

"1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention it is 
the right and dut}' of Georgia to secede from the present 
Union, and to cooperate with such of the other States as 
have or shall do the same, for the purpose of forming a South- 
ern Confederacy upon the basis of the Constitution of the 

United States. 2. Resolved, That a committee of be 

appointed by the Chair to report an ordinance to assert the 
right and fulfill the obligation of the State of Georgia to 
secede from the Union. "^ 



« Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 178. 
''Savannah Morning News, Jan. 3, 1M61. 

o Journal of the Convention of the People of Georgia held in 1861, p. \b. Fielder, I^ifc 
of Brown, p. 177. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 203 

Mr. H. V. Johnson offered as a substitute a resolution 
stating the affection of Georgia for the Union and her desire 
to preserve it if possible without injury to her own rights 
and safety, and an ordinance calling a convention of delegates 
from the States south of Pennsylvania and from the inde- 
pendent republics of South Carolina, Florida, Alaljama. and 
Mississippi, to meet on February 16 to consider the existing 
state of affairs, and declaring that if the efforts of such con- 
vention should fail to secure the rights of the South in the 
Union the State of Georgia would secede and unite with the 
other Southern States.'^' 

After an elaborate discussion, in which Messrs. Nisbet, H. V. 
Johnson, T. R. R. Cobb, A. H. Stephens, Toombs, Means, 
Reese, B. H. Hill, and F. S. Bartow participated, a call was 
made for the previous question, which brought the convention 
to a direct vote on Nisbet's resolution to secede. The vote, 
taken by yeas and nays, showed the adoption of the resolution 
l)y a majorit}^ of 1<)6 to 130. 

On the following day Mr. Nisbet, as chairman of the com- 
mittee, reported an ordinance for secession, in the form of a 
repeal and abrogation of the ordinance adopted by the people 
of Georgia in convention on January 2, 1788, ratifying the 
Constitution of the United States, and the several acts of the 
general assembly adopting amendments to that instrument, 
together with a declaration of the resumption l)y the State of 
Georgia of the full exercise of all rights of sovereignty which 
l)elong to a free and independent State.'' 

Benjamin H. Hill at once moved the adoption of Mr. John- 
son's resolution of the day before as a substitute for the seces- 
sion ordinance. His motion was lost })y a vote of 183 yeas to 
161: nays. This vote and the one of the day before were con- 
sidered as the definite test. The delegates who subsequently 
voted against secession did so with the object of recording 
their firm opposition to the precipitate measure. The ordi- 
nance was soon afterwards adopted by a vote of 208 to 89, and 
thereupon the president of the convention declared that it was 
his pleasure to announce that Georgia was a State, free, sov- 
ereign, and independent.'^ 

(I Journal of the Convention, pp. 15 to 20. Stephens, War.Between the States, vol. 2, p. 
301. 
('Ibid., p. 31. 
dbid., p. 39. 



204 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Just before the linal vote on the ordinance Mr. N. M. Craw- 
ford rose to explain the grounds of his preceding votes against 
secession and of his intended vote on the pending motion. He 
said that he had consistent!}' voted against the proposition to 
secede, but in view of the question having been settled by the 
test votes, he considered it his dutv to acquiesce in the declared 
policy of the State and had decided to strengthen the moral 
effect of the State's action by voting for the ordinance." 
Forty-three delegates adopted the same plan to show a similar 
attitude. In order to establish complete harmony, the con- 
vention ordained that, whereas the lack of unanimity on seces- 
sion was due not so much to difference of opinion on the rights 
of Georgia and her wrongs as to the remedy and its applica- 
tion before a resort to other means of redress, resolved that 
all who voted against the ordinance, as well as those who sup- 
ported it, would sign the document in order to show unani- 
mous determination to sustain the State in her chosen remedy. 
All of the delegates signed the ordinance but six, who pro- 
tested against the immediate secession of Georgia, but who 
pledged their lives, if necessary, to defend the State from hos- 
tile invasion from any source whatever.''^ 

It is to be regretted that, owing to the exclusion of report- 
ers, the speeches made in the convention, except that of Mr. 
Stephens,^ were never put into a durable form; but they were 
probably little more than i-epetitions of what had already 
been said or written. Mr. A. H. Stephens records that the 
most powerful argument in the whole campaign was that of 
Mr. T. R. R. Co])b, " We can make better terms out of the 
Union than in it." Mr. Stephens says, probably with much 
truth, that two-thirds of those who voted for the ordinance 
of secession did so expecting a subsequent re-formation of 
the Union with constitutional guaranties for slaver}- on the 
general line of those set forth in the substitute resolutions of 
Mr. Johnson.'' 

After the decision upon the main question before the conven- 
tion there were ninnerous matters which denianded and re- 
ceived attention. A unanimous vote of thanks was tendered 
the governor for his prompt action in seizing Fort Pulaski. 

"Southern Recorder, Jan. 22, 1S61. 

''Journal of the Convention, p. 51. 

<■ For which see Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 305 ff. 

d Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 381. 



Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. 



Plate IX 



WHITFIELD/ 
WALKER k ^URRAY CILMER 



FAN N I N ^ Ntqujwc/' ^ 
^ \uN10n\ 7 RABUN 



chattoooaJ ooroon 



Fl-OYO CASS 



(piCKEN3 



CHEROKEE 



/Lumpkin) Jhabersham 



— —Vhau C^**"** \ ■■'" r hart 



VIILTOI 



ulton' 



JACKSON 
GWlNNErT/\;^R^E 
4LT0N 



JVIADISON 



fceUTHORPE/ 



(wlLKES 



I CABROLL kCAMPBEU fcLAY-l \ NEWTONV/ .„. . A C^'v,, - 

gAHKOLL L___L_fTONj V /""'"'''N \ GREENE VaUA>V 



tcOWETA 



(FAY- 
ETTE^ 



Jhenry 






SE^^ 



JASPER (puTNAM f > . „ , 

HANCOCK \^^'J''^ 



h^"'" ( PIKE . , X ■ 

TROUP )weTHEr( MONROE I JONES V*'-"*"" , 

■^WASHINGTON 
, UPSON 

\ WILKINSON 
HARRIS frALBOT^>^R^„F0R^"'"" 

, , .^^—/rwiGGsX ^XliPHNSON 

-| TAYLOR 

HOUSTON \ ^^\ LAURENS 



JEFFER-1 

SON BURKE 



EMANUEL 



BCHLE 



I STEWART I ]~ \ 000 LY 

(kEBSTER SUMTER N^u^lt 



Sranooiph 

iCLAY 



fERRELL] LEE 



PULASKI 



SCREVEN 



BULLOCH \epf,ng\ 
HAM 



MONTGOMERY/ 



ALHOUN IDOUGHERTY] 
EARLY BAKER 



WORTH 



MILLER /MITCHELL COLQUITT 



BERRIEN 



COFFEE 



1 CLINCH 



LI BERTY 



DECATUR L„o„^s 



/brooks, 



CHARLTON 



/CAMDEN 



LOWNDES^ 



1 ECHOLS 



-lUS BfEN A CO-1 



MAP OF GEORGIA IN I860 

showing local pluralities in the presidential chM-tion oTthat year 

BELL . PLURALITT H RP^CKINIUDCI-: .PLL'RALITV 

OFTHK CONSTITirnON/U. UNION PAiriY OFTHK SOtmiERN DliMOCH.VrS 

I I 5010 60per cent ol'tlie totiil vote [' | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote 

|~^ I 60 „ 75 , „ nZ] 60 ., 75 

I I over 75 , „ , „ W^ Over75 

noi'Gi^\s,pix'UALi'n' 

OI'TllK NATIONAL nKMOCHA'l'S 
^^ 50 lo GO percent of t)u> total VDto 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 205 

All Federal civil officers in Georgia were instructed to con- 
tinue in the discharge of their duties until otherwise ordered 
by the convention. Provision was made for the equipment 
of a small armv and navy for the temporary defense of Geor- 
gia and the neighboring States. Commissioners were sent to 
those Southern States which had not yet decided to secede, 
and delegates were appointed to attend the convention of the 
seceded States, which was expected to establish a Southern 
Confederacy. 

An ordinance was unanimously adopted by the convention 
on January 23 establishing in full force for Georgia all laws 
of the United States in reference to the African slave trade, 
except the fifth section of the act of May 10, 1800, and with a 
modification of the act of May 10, 1820, so that instead of 
being piracy the slave trade should be punishable by con- 
finement in the penitentiary for from five to twent}^ years. 

On January 29 a report by Mr. Toombs was adopted as 
being suitable for publication to accompany the ordinance of 
secession and to justify it in the popular mind, « after which 
the convention adjourned to meet again in Savannah at the 
call of the president. It convened, accordingly, on March 7, 
adopted the constitution of the Confederate States by a 
unanimous vote, directed the governor to turn over the 
military and naval forces to the Confederate Government, 
formulated and adopted a new constitution for the State of 
Georgia, and finally adjourned on the 23d of March. 

The record of the yeas and nays upon every important 
measure taken by the convention renders easy the task of 
tracing the votes of each delegate to the count}^ which he 
represented. When the vote upon the question to secede is 
plotted in this way upon the map of the State, several inter- 
esting comparisons may be instituted regarding the attitude 
of different localities toward secession and toward the former 
political parties, and concerning the local distribution of 
slaves. 

The local vote in the Presidential election of 1860 was not 
essentially different from the usual party votes in the preced- 
ing years. On the eastern edge of the State most of the 
Democratic votes, together with a number of Whig votes, were 
cast for Douglas, but elsewhere the Democrats voted for 

a Journal of the Convention, p. 104. 



206 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Breckinridge. The support of the Constitutional Union can- 
didates came from the old Whig sections, though there was 
some diminution from the usual Whig vote on the seaboard, 
with a counterbalancing gain in the mountains. We have 
said that all the hot-heads were for Breckinridge, but it must 
be noted that just at this time there were very few radical 
hot-heads in the State. Everyone was awed by the impend- 
ing calamity. In the general consideration it mattered little 
whether Bell, Breckinridge, or Douglas carried Georgia. If 
Lincoln were not elected by the Electoral College, the choice 
would fall to the United States House of Representatives, 
where all of Lincoln's enemies would unite in support of one 
of his opponents. The light vote which was cast in Georgia 
showed the popular indifference to the result within the State. 

The strongholds of the Democratic party in Georgia, in a 
typical contest with the old Whig party, coincided, as a rule, 
with the districts in which the white people were more numer- 
ous than the slaves. In the contest of 1860 this was still 
true, except on the seaboard, and with the proviso that the 
supporters of Douglas be not classed with the Georgia Dem- 
ocrats. Regarding the vote for secession, no such generali- 
zation can be made. In fact, party lines were not in any wav 
preserved in the convention of 1861. The only general 
tendency to be stated is that delegates sent by the Whig or 
Constitutional Union counties Avere inclined to v^ote for seces- 
sion, and those from counties which had given Breckinridge 
majorities tended to vote against immediate secession. 

This was exactly the reverse of what might have been ex- 
pected if Georgia politics had been quite logical in the pre- 
ceding period. As a rule, the Whigs in the South were the 
moderates, opposing the Democratic tire eaters, and in (jeor- 
gia the case in all appearances was not an exception; but an 
historical development had been temporarily reversed in 1840, 
when the Georgia State Rights part}' had joined the Whigs, 
and an anomalous state of things had resulted. There had 
been no great disruption of parties in 1840, because the 
existing economic and social bonds were stronger than those 
of strictly political character. The State Rights men l)ccame 
moderate Unionists in the Whig party and the members of the 
Union party, as Democrats, took up the advocacy of State 
rights. This double somersault decided the policy which 
each party was to advocate for the next twenty years. The 



Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. 



Plate X 



Rome 



AtlaVa 



*usta\ 



-Macon 



r 



MAP OF GEORGIA I N I860 

showing the local preponderance of whites and negroes as^iven 

in the U. S. census of that year. 

NEGROES MAJORTTT \\"HITES MAJORITIT 

[~~] 50 to 60 percent of llie total population | | 50 to 60 percent of the total population 

I 1 60 ,75 cm 60 .. 75 , . . , . 

I I over 75 . „ „ „ „ „ WS^ Over75 ...... 

nl)ov<' 9() - . ■ • - 



[•;\;y;| equal niuiihei- of whiles nnd neSroes 

A^oCe.- N^o county in w/)ii</t a (nr</e ffixvit ii'ns laccited 
hnri CI rnqjorityofnet/i-oex in i(s popit/iitio/i 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 207 

election of 1860 was the last one before the destruction of the 
false arrangement. In it the slave-owning Whigs voted for 
the conciliatory Bell and the anti-secessionist Douglas, while 
the Unionist, nonslaveholding Democrats supported the rad- 
ical Breckinridge. It was inevitable that the crisis of 1861 
should bring about a counter somersault in some degree. 

It is not eas}^ to determine whether the policy of secession 
was radical or conservative. Its advocates as well as its 
opponents claimed the quality of conservatism for their re- 
spective causes, and each party had some ground for their 
contention. A study of the courses of the individual party 
leaders between 1850 and 1860 will throw light on the ques- 
tion, though it will not give a solution. 

Messrs. Toombs, Stephens, and Howell Cobb were, in 1850, 
responsible for the adoption of the Georgia platform, sup- 
portiv^e of the national compromise of that year. Of these, 
Mr. Toombs was from first to last the most pronounced for 
Southern rights, and for State rights as a means to an end. 
In 1850, though a Whig, he stood upon the Georgia platform 
as an ultimatum to the North. In 1853 he abandoned the 
Whig party because it favored the restriction of slavery. In 
1861 he stood for secession, because of the refusal of the 
Republicans to give guaranties against their anticipated attack 
upon Southern rights. 

Mr. Cobb, a Democrat throughout the decade, favored the 
compromise in 1850 because it was conservative and promised 
peace; but after the triumph of the Republicans became a 
certainty he took up the advocacy of secession, because he 
thought that any other course would in the near future bring 
about a war between the two sections as a result of the aggres- 
sive Republican policy. 

Mr. Stephens was always eminently conservative. When 
the Georgia Whigs joined the sectional Southern Know-noth- 
ings, he became a member of the Democratic party. In the 
contest of 1860 he supported Douglas as the candidate of the 
only remaining national party. In the convention of 1861 he 
advocated delay and remonstrance instead of immediate with- 
drawal from the Union. 

Mr. Johnson was dissatisfied with the Georgia platform in 
the early part of the decade," and in 1853 he was elected gov- 

a Letter of Mr. Johnson, expressing disunion sentiments, dated Aug. 30, 1851; Federal 
Union, Sept. 11, 1860. 



208 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

ernor by the Democrats as an advocate of Southern rights 
and in opposition to Mr. Jenkins as the Union candidate. 
Finding reason in later years to change his attitude, he 
joined Mr. Steplien.s in the leadership of the peace faction of 
the Democrats and accepted a nomination to the Vice-Presi- 
dency on the ticket with Mr. Douglas. In the Georgia conven- 
tion, with Mr. Stephens and Mr. Hill as his colleagues, he was 
a champion of the project for a Southern convention which 
should precede and might obviate the necessity for secession. 
Mr. Nisbet had been in touch with Georgia politics for 
thirt3^-live years or more. An admirer of Troup in his youth, 
he had followed the general tendency, becoming successively 
a member of the State Rights, AVhig, and Know-Nothing par- 
ties. He was a warm supporter of the compromise in 1850, 
but was in the forefront of the secessionists in 1861. 

Mr. Hill, though a much younger man, had been the col- 
league of Mr. Nisbet in the Whig and American parties. 
From a comparison of his utterances it may be seen that Mr. 
Hill wavered l)etween the antagonistic policies before 1860, 
but from the beginning of the Presidential campaign he decided 
against secession unless it were by the advice of a Southern 
convention. 

Mr. T. R. R. Cobb had never felt any strong interest in pol- 
itics until the capture of the (government by the anti-slavery 
party inspired him to lead Georgia out of the Union, the bet- 
ter to secure stronger guarantees for the peculiar institution 
upon her reentrance into the sisterhood. 

As for Mr. Brown, we have seen that he was a progressive 
Southern Rights Democrat in 1819; that, though he acquiesced 
in the compromise of 1850, he was not convinced of its finality, 
and that as governor he urged the State to secession, and, indeed, 
anticipated the action of the convention by seizing Fort 
Pulaski. 

We thus demonstrate that, with the exception of Mr. Jen- 
kins and Mr. Stephens, whose courses had been very similar, 
. there were no two leaders of political thought in Georgia in 
1861 who had been in complete agreement throughout the 
decade. Most of those above named were conservative in dis- 
position, yet they could not agree upon a policy. 

The institution of domestic servitude had naturally a con- 
servative intluence upon those who were interested in its 



Historical Report, 1901- Phillips. 



Plate XI 



III 



\.r.cob(b „ _k u 

\iii7 ni«-r'^B 



II 



Ch.hill 



il II 



H.V.JOHNSON 



11 E.AvNlSBET 



'\ X II 



MAP OF GE()1K;1A in 1861 -'"uusb,.n*co .. 

t£™isPnSr Th '"^ ?^"i^-'^^^:r, '" "^'^ «<Hvs.si«n convenli„n.(racod lo iho couiUies which 

th.> jopiosent Ml 1.. v(,U- lipn- ,llnst,-nted was th.> test volo.takcn on Jan 18,and not 

uie liual voLcon the adoption ofthe ordinance of secession. 

/h)fn tJi.eirivspective seciiorus o/'the ^-tnte. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 209 

maintenance. Slaves were capital, and capital is always con- 
servative in its tendenc}' . Moreover, slaver}^ was generally 
on the defensive against attack, and thus in a conservative 
position. It was a long-established institution, and for that 
reason its maintenance was conservative. Secession was 
advocated by its supporters as a means to the more certain 
preservation of slaver}', and in that light the policy seems 
itself to have been conservative. 

But, on the other hand, the opposition to secession in Geor- 
gia was not opposition to the principle but to the advisability 
of appl3dng the drastic remed}^ without first taking milder 
measures which might render it unnecessary. Secession 
appears from this point of view to have been radical. When 
we consider, however, that from the practical certainty of the 
refusal of the North to yield the constitutional guaranties 
which were demanded for the permanent advantage of slaver}', 
the only result from a Southern convention would probably 
have been a concerted secession at a later period. The question 
as to conservatism is again unsettled. 

The plot of the vote in the secession convention, when 
traced to the counties, shows that there was a general, though 
by no means universal, tendency in favor of secession among 
delegates from the sections where slaves were numerous, and 
an opposite, but no more universal, tendency from the dis- 
tricts where the whites preponderated. The personal influ- 
ence of Stephens, Johnson, and Hill carried their home 
sections against immediate secession; while Brown, Toombs, 
Nisbet, Bartow, and the two Cobbs were powerful in their 
districts for withdrawal from the Union. It is interesting to 
note that every countv in which a city or large town was 
located had in 1860 a comparatively small slave population. 
Yet ever}' delegate from such counties voted for secession 
when the test question was upon its passage. 

We see, then, that the progressive townspeople as well as 
the great conservative slaveholders, of whom Howell Cobb 
was a type, were strong in the advocacy of immediate seces- 
sion; and that the people of the mountains and of the barren 
parts of the southern pine region, who were so conservative 
as to be almost retrogressive, tended to combine in opposition 
to immediate withdrawal; but that all Georgians wei-e agreed 
in the opinion that their State had a constitutional right to 
H. Doc. 7U2, pt. 2 14 



210 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

secede whenever its sovereign people should see fit to exercise 
that right. 

It has been our object in large part in the preceding pages 
to set forth the histor}^ of the doctrine of State rights in 
Georgia. AVe have noted the influence of such matters as 
Indian afl'airs and the protective tarifl' in developing opposi- 
tion to a highly centralized government, and we have explained 
the cumulative efiect of the slavery struggle in bringing about 
actual secession. In our pursuit of historical truth we have at 
length reached the culmination of the whole movement in the 
adoption of an ordinance by the people of Georgia to secede 
from the United States and to resume on the part of the com- 
monwealth all rights of sovereignty which had been dele- 
gated to the Federal government. We have not attempted 
to settle constitutional questions which were involved, but 
have usually confined ourselves in such matters to the state- 
ment of the interpretations of history and the Constitution 
which were advanced by prominent Georgians. It only 
remains to state that after so many years of political disagree- 
ment between the various successive parties, the people of 
Georgia at length achieved unanimity, when each citizen 
excelled his neighbor in the support of the ordinance by which 
Georgia had declared herself again sovereign and in the 
defense of Southern rights and Southern independence.'* 



a Cf. Editorial in Southern Recorder, Jan. 29, IStil. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



HISTOKIES OF GEORCilA. 

Arthur, T. S., and Carpenter, W. H. History of Georgia from its earliest 
settlement to the present time. Philadelphia, 1882. 
Of little value as an authoritative work. 

Avery, I. W. History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881. New 
York, 1881. 

Notwithstanding his extravagance in the use of atljectives, the facts stated by 
Mr. Avery are reliable. The work is in large part a biography and eulogy of 
Joseph E. Brown. 

Evans, Lawton B. A student's history of Georgia. New York, 1898. 

An excellent school history. Indeed, though meager, it is the fullest in detail 
of any work covering the whole field of the history of the State. 

Jones, C. C, Jr. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Boston, 1883. 

One of the very best of American colonial histories. The work as published 
only reaches the end of the American Revolution. The author did not carry out 
his design of covering the history of Georgia as a State in later volumes. 

M'Call, Hugh. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Savannah, 1811-1816. 

The contents of the first volume are taken almost bodily from Hewitt's Histori- 
cal Collections of South Carolina. The second volume contains valuable mate- 
rial relating to Georgia in the Revolutionary war. 

Mitchell, Frances L. Georgia land and people. Atlanta, 1900. 

Considerable research is shown, but little constructive ability. This work, in 
common with nearly all others on Georgia history, has the fault of giving no 
references to sources of information. 

Smith, Charles H. A school history of Georgia. Boston, 1896. 

In addition to an outline of the history of Georgia to 1893, this little book con- 
tains chapters upon social and political institutions in ante-bellum Georgia, 
which are worthy of note as being written by one who has lived ob.sf rvingly in 
the period of which he writes. 

Smith, G, G. Story of Georgia and the Georgia people. 1732 to 1860. 
Macon, 1900. 

Contains noteworthy material upon the process of settlement. For the general 
history of the State the author relies mainly upon secondary authorities. County 
histories fill a large part of the volume. 

Stevens, W. B. History of Georgia to 1798. 2 vols. 

A very satisfactory history of colonial Georgia. The treatment of the period 
after the Revolution is somewhat fragmentary. 

White, George. Historical Collections of Georgia. New York, 1854. 

Contains much valuable material in the shape of original documents, biograph- 
ical sketches, and local nistory. According to a statement of Governor Wilson 
Lumpkin, White's account of Cherokee affairs is faulty. 

211 



212 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

White, George. .Statistics of Georgia, its natural, civil, and ecclesiastical 
history, descrijition of each county, accounts of the aboriginees. 
Savannah, 1849. 

Most of the valuable material lii this volume, which itself is (luite good, is 
iucorporated in the later work by the same author — Historical Collections of 
Georgia. 

LOCAL AND SPECIAL HISTORIES. 

Butler, J. C. Historical record of Macon and central Georgia. Macon, 

1879. 

The best local history in the Georgia field. 

BowEN, Eliza A. Story of Wilkes County. Washington, Ga., circ, 1882. 

Chappell^ Absalom H. Miscellanies of Georgia, historical, biographical, 
descriptive, etc. Columbus, Ga., 1874. 

Contains sketches of Alexander McGillivray, Elijah Clarke, Benjamin Hawkins, 
James Jackson, of the Georgia land lottery, and of the Yazoo fraud. Possesses 
value for the general reader; it deals too much in eulogies and generalities to 
have great value as an authority. 

Dutcher, Salem (and Jones, C. C'., Jr.). Memorial history of Augusta, 
Georgia . . . Syracuse, N. Y., 1890. 

Georgia Historical Society Collections. Savannah, vol. 1, 1840; a^oI. 
2, 1842; vol. 3, 1873; vol. 4, 1878. 

Contains valuable material, largely in the shape of reprints of documents for 
the colonial period. "A Sketch of the Creek Country in 1798 and 1799" was 
printed in 1848 as part of vol. 3, but was never published. 

In addition to its "collections," the society has published a considerable num- 
ber of pamphlets, devoted chiefly to the annual addresses before the eociety. 
Some of these are of considerable value. 

Haskins, Charles H. The Yazoo Land Companies. 1891. Keprinted 
from American Historical Association Papers, vol. 4, No. 4. 

This excellent little monograph was printed as a doctor's dissertation at Johns 
Hopkins University. It is the final authority in its field. Fully equipped with 
references. 

Jones, C. C. The Dead Towns of Georgia. Savannah, 1878. 

In explaining the reasons for the decay of such towns as Fredcrica and Ebeu- 
ezer the author throws light upon the economic history of Georgia. This was also 
published as vol. 4 of Georgia Historical Society Collections. 

Lee, F. D., and Agnew, J. L. Historical record of the city of Savannah. 
Savannah, 1869. 

Me.moirs o» Georgia, containing historical accounts of the State's civil, 
military, industrial and professional interests and personal sketches of 
many of its peoi)le. 2 vols. Atlanta, 1895. 

Pickett, Albert J. History of Alabama, and incidentally of Georgia and 
Mississippi, from the earliest period. Third edition. Charleston, 
1851. 

This excellent history of Alabama contains much authoritative iiniterial on 
Georgia history. It concludes its view with the year 1819. 

Reed, Wallace P., editor. History of Atlanta, Georgia. Syracuse, N. Y., 
1889. 



GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 213 

ScoMP, H. A. King alcohol in the realm of king cotton, or a history of 
of the liquor traffic and of the prohibition movement in Georgia from 
1733 to 1887. 1888. 

Incidentally to the main theme, the history of Georgia receives some treat- 
ment in its political, economic, and social aspects. 

Strobel, p. a. The Salzburgers and their descendants, Baltimore, 1855. 
In relating- the history of the German colony at Ebenezer, near Savannah, the 
author describes to some extent the economic and social conditions in Georgia as 
a colony and as a young State. 

Sherwood, Adiel. A gazeteer of the State of Georgia. Charleston, 1827. 
Second edition, Philadelphia, 1829. Third edition, enlarged, Wash- 
ington, 1837. Fourth edition, 1860. 

Of some value as containing data showing the condition of the State at the 
various dates of publication. The later editions have maps of indifYerent quality. 
The issue of 1860 gives a list of the literary productions of Georgia to that date. 

Stacy, James. History of Midway Church, Liberty County, Ga. New- 
nan, Ga., 1899. 

The history of the community at Midway, which included a large number 
of leading Georgia men and families, is an important contribution to Georgia 
history. 

Vedder, O. F., and Weldon, Frank (and Jones, C. C, Jr.). History of 

Savannah . . . Syracuse, N. Y., 1890. 
Wilson, Adelaide. Historic and picturesque Savannah. Boston, 1889. 

WooLLEY, E. C. The Reconstruction of Georgia. New York, 1901. 

A painstaking monograph in a field for which there is little material generally 
accessible. Full bibliographical apparatus. 

BIOGRAPHIES AND MEMOIRS. 

Andrews, Garnet. Reminiscences of an old Georgia lawyer. Atlanta, 
1870. 

Boykin, S. Memorial volume of Howell Cobb. Atlanta, 1870. 
Contains a biographical sketch by W. H. Browne. 

Calhoun, John C. The correspondence of J. C. Calhoun, edited by J. F. 
Jameson. Printed in the Report of the American Historical Associ- 
ation for 1899, vol. 2, Washington, 1901. 

Contains much material of great value for Southern history. The letters to 
and from Wilson Lumpkin are to be noted as relating to Georgia. 

Charlton, Thos. U. P. The life of Maj. Gen. James Jackson. Augusta, 
1809. Reprinted, Atlanta, no date. 

The reprint contains accounts of Jackson by several writers, and also contains 
a valuable set of letters from Jackson to John Milledgo and others. 

Cleveland, H. Alexander H. Stephens in public and private. Phila- 
delphia, 1866. 

The collection of letters and speeches is valuable. 

Crawford, W. H. Correspondence. MSS. 

A small collection is in private possession in Athens, Ga. There are also a few 
letters of Crawford in the library of the Department of State at Washington, in 
the New York Public Library, and in the Boston Public Library. Scattering let- 
ters of Crawford are to be found in the printed correspondence of Clay and of 
Gallatin. On the whole, very few Crawford letters have been preserved. 



214 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Draper, Lyman C. Collection of MSS. in the Wisconsin Historical Society 
Library. 

The volume of documents relating to Georgia is chiefly concerned with Elijah 
Clarke. 

DiT BosE, J. W. Life and times of W. L. Yancey. Birmingham, Ala., 1892. 

A painstaking work, which is useful in the study of the secession movement. 
Fielder, H. Life, times, and speeches of Joseph E. Brown. Springfield, 
Mass., 1883. 

The shortcomings of the biography are offset by the collection of documents 
and the sketches of Brown's contemporaries. 

Gilmer, George K. Sketches of some of the first settlers of upper Geor- 
gia, of the Cherokees, and of the author. New York, 1855. 

A noteworthy book of remarkable frankness; contains biographical and genea- 
logical sketches of the Gilmers and the neighboring families, an account of the 
settlement of upper Georgia, and an autobiography, including documents chiefly 
concerning the Cherokees. 

. The literary progress of Georgia. The semi-centennial address 

of the University of Georgia. Athens, Ga., 185L pm. 

A rambling discussion of conditions in early Georgia. Little attention given to 
the literary progress. Much of the material was afterwards used by the author 
in writing the work listed above. 

Harden, E. J. Life of George M. Troup. Savannah, 1840. 

A satisfactory work. Numerous documents are given in connection with the 
account of the Creek controversy. 

HiLLiARD, Henry W. Politics and pen pictures at home and abroad. 
New York, 1892. 

Valuable chiefly for its authoritative account of Southern and national politics. 
Contains notices of Georgia history prior to 1860. 

Jones, C. C, Jr. Biographical sketches of the delegates from Georgia to 
the Continental Congress. New York, 1891. 

All of Colonel Jones's work is of an accurate and valuable character. In addi- 
tion to his works listed herein, he wrote a large number of pamphlets, addresses, 
etc. In a brief memorial of his father (Augusta, Ga., 1893), Mr. C. E. Jones gives 
a bibliography of eighty titles, mostly relating to Georgia history. 

Hawkins, Benjamin. Journals and papers. MSS. 

There are ten small MSS. volumes of the Hawkins papers in the library of the 
Georgia Historical Society at Savannah. The society has printed the most valu- 
able of these, "A sketch of the Creek country in the years 1798 and 1799," as an 
extra part to the third volume of its "collections." The remaining Hawkins 
papers are journals of routine work among the Creeks and correspondence which 
is of a kind useful only in very minute research in Creek aflfairs. 

Johnston, R. M., and Browne, W. H. Life of Alexander H. Stephens. 

Philadelphia, 1878. 

A most excellent biography, giving a good view of political history and con- 
taining a full and well-selected collection of letters and the shorter speeches. 

Lumpkin, Wilson. Incidents connected with the life of. 2 vols. MSS. 
A valuable autobiography covering the period of the author's active politi- 
cal life from about 1810 to about 18J0. It contains a large number of letters, 
speeches, and executive messages dealing largely with internal improvements 
and Cherokee Indian affairs. The manuscript, if printed, would fill some 1,500 
octavo pages. It is now in private possession in Athens, Ga. 

Mayes, Edward. Lucius Q. C. Lamar: his life, times, and speeches, 1825- 
1893. Nashville, 1896. 

The early chapters contain some treatment of conditions in Georgia in Lamar's 
youth. 



GEOEGIA A"ND STATE RIGHTS. 215 

Miller, S. F. Bench and bar of Georgia : memoirs and sketches. Phila- 
delphia, 1858. 2 vols. 

A collection of mediocre biographical sketches. Contains valuable documents 
and some other material of value which is not readily accessible elsewhere. 
The sketches of J. M. Berrien and A. S. Clayton are the most valuable in the 
collection. 

Meigs, W. H. Life of Josiah Meigs. Philadelphia, 1887. 

Josiah Meigs was president of the University of Georgia from 1801 to 1811. 
This short biography gives some account of the primitive conditions in upper 
Georgia at that time. 

Stovall, p. a. Robert Toombs: statesman, speaker, soldier, sage. New- 
York, 1892. 

One of the best biographies in the Georgia field. It gives a good view of politi- 
cal affairs in the lifetime of Toombs. 

Sparks, W. H. The memories of fifty years. Philadelphia, 1870. 

While not reliable for strict accuracy, this volume of reminiscence contains in 
its early chapters good accounts of men and conditions in Georgia in the first 
decades of the nineteenth century. 

Waddell, James D. Biographical sketch of Linton Stephens. Atlanta, 
1877. 

Linton Stephens was the younger brother of A. H. Stephens. This work has 
little value except as simple biography. 

THE LAWS OF GEORGIA. 

Georgia General Assembly, acts passed by, from 1778 to the present 
time, except 1777-1799, 1805-1810, etc. MSS. in the office of the sec- 
retary of state, Atlanta. 

The text or substance of all laws of general application may be found in the 
compilations and digests. The acts and resolutions of each session were printed 
from about 1812. 

Georgia Colonial Assembly. Acts passed by the Georgia assembly, 
1755-1774. Wormsloe, 1881. 

Contains such colonial acts of Georgia as are not to be found in the regular 
compilations of laws. Privately printed. The edition was limited to 49 copies. 

Marbury, H., and Crawford, W. H. A compilation of the laws of 
Georgia from 1755 to 1800. Containing also the constitutions of 
Georgia of 1777, 1789, and 1798. Savannah, 1802. 

Watkins, George. A compilation of the laws of Georgia. 1802. 

This compilation failed to obtain recognition by the State authorities, because 
it contained the Yazoo act which had been ordered e.xpunged from the records. 

Clayton, AS. A compilation of the laws of Georgia passed between 1800 

and 1810. Augusta, 1813. 
Prince, O. H. Digest of the laws of Georgia enacted jirevioua to 1820. 

MilledgeviUe, 1822. 
Dawson, VV. C. A compilation of the laws of Georgia passed between 1819 

and 1829. MilledgeviUe, 1831. 
Foster, Arthur. A digest of the laws of Georgia passed between 1820 and 

1829. Philadelphia, 1831. 
Prince, 0. H. Digest of the laws oi Georgia enacted previous to 1837. 

Athens, 1837. 



216 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

HoTCHKiss, W. A. Codification of the statute law of Georgia. Savannah, 
1845. 

Cobb, T. R. R. Digest of the statute laws of Georgia in force prior to 1851. 
2 vols. Athens, 1851. 

Clark, R. H., Cobb, T. R. R., and Irwin, D. Code of Georgia. Atlanta, 
1861. 

GEORGIA PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 

Georgia executive council. Journals for 1783-84 and 1789-1792. MSS. 
in the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. Continued in the senate 
journal. 

Georgia senate. Journal from 1790 to the present time, except 1792-1799, 
1805-1810, etc. MSS. in the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. 
The journals of the senate were printed from about 1808. 

Georgia house of representatives. Journal from 1781 to the present 
time, except 1789-1795, 1798-1800, 1801-2, 1805, 1811, etc. MSS. in 
the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. The journals of the house 
were printed from about 1808. 

Convention of 1839. Journal of the convention to reduce and equalize 
the representation of the general assembly of Georgia. Milledgeville, 
1839. 

Convention op 1850. Journal of the Georgia convention held in Milledge- 
ville in 1850. Milledgeville, 1850. 

Convention op 1861. Journal of the public and secret proceedings of the 
convention of the people of Georgia, held in Milledgeville and Savan- 
nah in 1861. Milledgeville, 1861. 

Delegates of Georgia in the Continental Congress. Observations upon 
the effects of late political suggestions. Wormsloe, 1847. 
See infra, p. 26. 

Legislature of Georgia. Address and rem<instrance (1801). 

For numerous Georgia documents see American State Papers, Indian Affairs, to 
19th Congress, 1827, 2 vols., and Public Lands, to 24tli Congress, 1837, 8 vols., Wash- 
ington. Also H. Niles, Political Register, 1811 to 1849, Baltimore. 

Charlton, T. U. P. Reports of cases argued and determined In the 
superior courts of the eastern distrii-t of the State of Georgia. 
N. Y., 1824. 

Dudley, G. M. Reports of decisions made by the judges of the superior 
courts of law and chancery of the State of Georgia. N. Y., 1837. 

Charlton, Robert M. Reports of decisions made in the superior courts 
of the eastern district of Georgia. Savannah, 1838. 

Decisions of the superior courts of the State of Georgia. Part 1, 
containing decisions rendered during the year 1842. Augusta, 1843. 

Reports op cases in law and equity, argued and determined in the 
supreme court of Georgia. 110 -|- vols. (1846 to the present). Vari» 
ous reporters and places of publication. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 217 

WORKS ON STATE EIGHTS AND SECESSION. 

Powell, Edward Payson. Nullification and Secession in the United 
States. A history of the six attempts during the first century of the 
Republic. N. Y., 1897. 

Houston, D. F. Nullification in South Carolina. N. Y., 1896. 
A careful history of the movement, from the original documents. 

Calhoun, John C. A discourse on the Constitution and Government of 
the United States. Columbia, S. C, 1851. 

An exposition of the extreme particularist, or State sovereignty, view of the 
federal constitution. 

Hodgson, Joseph. Cradle of the Confederacy, or the times of Troup, Quit- 
man, and Yance}^ Mobile, 1876. 

Stephens, Alexander H. Constitutional view of the late war between 
the States. 2 vols., Phila., 1868-1870. 

The ablest defense extant of the Southern policy leading to secession. Gives 
special attention, in parts of the second volume, to occurrences in Georgia. 

Curry, J. L. M. Civil history of the government of the Confederate 
States. Richmond, 1901. 

A large part of the volume is devoted to a legal and constitutional defense of 
secession. 

Davis, Jefferson. Rise and fall of the Confederate Goverimient. .Svols., 
N. Y:, 1881. 

WORKS ON SLAVERY. 

Adams, Nehemiah. A South-side view of slavery. Second edition. Bos- 
ton, 1855. 

A rose-colored account of conditions in Savannah, by a Boston clergyman who 
made a trip to the South and experienced a shattering of his preconceived 
opinions. 

BuRKE, Emily P. Reminiscences of Georgia. Oberlin, Ohio, 1850. 
A fairly satisfactory account of .social and economic conditions. 

Cobb, Thos. R. R. An historical sketch of slavery. Phila., 1858. 

Chapters IX to XVIII treat of negro sla^■ery, chiefly in the United States, of 
abolition, and of colonization. 

CoBiJ, Thos. R. R. An inquiry into the law of negro slavery in the United 
States of America. Vol. I, Phila., 1858. 

This volume treats of the legal status of the slaves .as persf>ns. The volume on 
slaves as property was never piiblished. 

Kemble, Frances A. Journal of a residence on a Georgia plantation in 
1838-39. N. Y., 1863. 

A dark picture of conditions in the sea-island district of Georgia, where the 
evils of slavery existed in intensified form. The bad features are over-empha. 
sized, and the inference is made that everywhere else slavery was worse than 
where the author saw it. 

Mallard, R. Q. Plantation life before emancipation. Richmond, 1897. 
A description of the status of slaves in Liberty County, Georgia, by a former 
slaveholder. Shows the ameliorations, which the author of Kemble's Journal 
could not appreciate. 

Olmsted, F. L. A journey in the seaboard slave States, with remarks on 
their economy. N. Y., 1856. 

Hardly so prejudiced as the account of slavery given by Miss Kemble (Mrs. 
Butler). 




REPRINT OF C-AMPBEI 



218 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

HISTORY OF THE INDIANS. 

RoYCE, C. C. The Cherokee Nation of Indians: A narrative of their official 
relations with the Colonial and Federal governments. In report of 
the United States Bureau of Ethnology. 1833-84, pp. 121-378. Wash- 
ington, 1887. 

A meritorious work, with excellent maps of the Cherokee lands. 

Weil, Robert. Legal status of the Indian. N. Y., 1888. 
Doctor's dissertation at Columbia College. 

MAPS OF GEORGIA. 

1750. "Anew and accurate map of the province of Georgia in Nortli 
America." (British Museum.) 

1780. Sketch of the northern frontiers of Georgia, extending from the 
mouth of the river Savannah to the town of Augusta, by Archibald 
Campbell. Engraved by Wm. Faden, Charing Cross, 1780. 

Shows plantations, fortifications, roads, forests, and swamps between Savan- 
nah and Augusta. Nearly all the farms and plantations above Savannah front 
upon the river, while the highroad is a mile or two distant from the river. Fre- 
quent plantation roads branch off the highroad. Mills and taverns are very few. 
The names of many planters are laid down. The map is apparently accurate and 
certainly valuable. Reprinted herewith. 

1781. The seaboard region of Georgia, in the "Atlantic Neptune," vol. 2, 
parts, plate 9. (British Museum.) 

An excellent map. 

1794. "A new and general map of the Southern dominions belonging to 
the United States of America." (British Museum. ) 

1818. Early, Eleazer. Map of the State of Georgia, prepared from actual 
surveys and other documents. 

A fine large wall map, of which numerous copies are extant. 

1826. Map of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, showing an 
extensive scheme of proposed canals. ( British Museum. ) 

1827. Tanner, H.S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. Phila., 1827. (Brit- 
ish Museum. ) 

1830. Map of the State of Georgia, drawn by Carlton Wellborn and 
Orange Green. Savannah, 1830, fold 12mo. (Georgia Historical 
Society. ) 

1835. Tanner, H. S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. Phila., 1835. 

1835. Mitchell, S. A. Map of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. 
Phila., 1835. (British Maseum.) 
Gives stage routes and their schedules. 

1846. Tanner, H. S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. 
Shows railroads and highways. 

1861. Bonner, W. G. Map of Georgia by direction of the general assem- 
bly. Published at Milledgeville. 
A large wall map. 

1864. Lloyd, J. T. Topographical map of Georgia. N. Y., 1864. 
A large map. Accurate in details. 



GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 219 

ATLASES CONTAINING MAPS OF GEORGIA. 

1796. Reid, John. The American Atlas. N. Y., 1796. To accompany 

Winterbotham's History. (Congressional Library.) 

1823. Carey, H. C, and Lea, I. Atlas. Phila., 1823. 

1830. Finley, Anthony. Atlas. Phila., 1830. 

1853. Thomas, Copperthwaite & Co. Atlas. Phila., 1853. 

1861. Colton. General Atlas, N. Y., 1861. 

1862. Mitchell. New General Atlas. Phila., 1862. 

GEORGIA NEWSPAPERS, ANTE BELLUM. 

Files in the University of Georgia Libranj, Athens, Ga. 

Athens: Georgia Express, 1808 to 1813. Athens Gazette, 1814 to 1817. 

Athenian, 1827 to 1833. Southern Banner, 1833 to 1846. 
Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1786 to 1841, except 1793 and 1800 to 1804. 

Augusta Herald, 1799 to 1806, 1812, 1815, 1817-18, 1821. Columbian 

Sentinel, 1807. Augusta Courier, 1827-28. Constitutionalist, 1825 to 

1841. 
Columbus: Columbus Enquirer, 1832 to 1841. Sentinel and Herald, 1838. 
Macon: Georgia Messenger, 1831 fo 1841. Macon Telegraph, 1832 to 1835. 
Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1810 to 1837. Southern Recorder, 1820 

to 1836. 
Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1798 to 1802. Columbian Museum, 1804 and 

1813-14. Savannah Republican, 1802 and 1833, except 1816 and 1831. 

Georgian, 1819 to 1823, and 1829 to 1841. 

Files in the library of the Georgia Historical Society, Savannah, Ga. 

Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1774, 1775, 1783 to 1802, 1817 to 1820. 
Columbian Museum, 1796 to 1802, 1804, 1806 to 1808. Patriot, 1806-7. 
Public Intelligencer, 1807-8. Savannah Republican, 1807 to 1813. 
Georgian, 1819, 1822 to 1850. Savannah Journal, 1852, 1853, 1855. 

Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1790 to 1800. Southern Centinel, 1793 to 

1799. 
Milledgeville: Southern Recorder, 1829 to 1840, 1845 to 1847. 
Cassville: Standard, 1855. 

Files in the Congressional Library, Washington. 

Athens: Southern Whig, 1849. 

Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1819 to 1830, 1849 to 1854, 1858 to 1860. 

Constitutionalist, 1856, 1858 to 1860. 
Columbus: Columbus Enquirer, 1841 to 1847. Columbus Times, 1845 to 

1849. 
Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1819 to 1828, 1830, 1841 to 1843, 1845. 

Patriot, 1823-4. Southern Recorder, 1822 to 1825, 1843, 1851, 1852. 

Statesman, 1826. Standard of Union, 1841. Federal Union, 1843 to 

1845, 1847 to 1849. 



220 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1775, 1779 to 1799 fragmentary. Georgian, 
1823 to 1826, 1829-30, 1833 to 1841, 1846 to 1849, 1832 to 1856. Georgia 
Republican and State Intelligencer, 1803 to 1805. Savannah Repub- 
lican, 1807 to 1812, 1814 to 1872. 

Files in the Library of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wis. 

Ew Echota: Cherokee Phoenix, 1828 to 1834. Also fragmentary files 
of other Georgia newspapers. 

Files in tlte office of the Union and Recorder, MiUedgeviUe, Ga. 

Milledgeville: Statesman and Patriot, 1826-7. Southern Recorder, 
1836 to 1847, 1857 to 1860. Federal Union, 1830 to 1874. Union and 
Recorder, 1874 to the present. 

Augusta: Courier, 1827-8. 

File hi private possession, MiUedgeviUe, Ga. 

Milledgeville: Southern Recorder, 1820 to 1868. 

Files in the office of the Savannah Morning News, Savannah, Ga. 

Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1794 to 1796. Columbian Museum, 1803. 
Savannah Morning News, 1850 to the present. 

File in the office of the Augusta Cltronicle, Augusta, Ga. 

Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1800 to the present. Also a partial file 
before 1800. 

Files in tlie office of the Macon Telegraph, Macon, Ga. 

Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1819 to 1825, 1826-7, 1829 to 1835, 1837 

to 1841, 1843 to 1845, 1847 to 1849. 
Penfield: Christian Index, 1850-51, 1856-7, 1859. 
Macon: Georgia Messenger, 1825, 1829, 1833 to 1842, 1845 to 1847. Journal 

and Messenger, 1851 to 1857, 1860-61. Georgia Telegraph, 1847 to 

1853. Telegraph and Messenger, continued as Macon Telegraph, 1863 

to the present. 

File in the office of the Columhns Enquirer, Columbus, Ga. 

Columbus: Enquirer, 182S to the present. 

Files in the State Capitol, the Carnegie Librarj/, and the office of the Atlanta 
Constitution, Atlanta, Ga. 

None antedating 1861. 



INDEX TO GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 



Adams, John, 92. 

Adams, J. Q., 58, 62, 71, 92. 

Agriculture in Georgia, 130. 

Alien and sedition laws 1797, 92. 

Altamaha River, 48. 

American party (Know-nothing), 177-LsO. 

American Revolution, 1.5, 39. 

Andrews, Garnett, 178. 

Andrews, T. P., 57. 

Annapolis convention, 16, 17. 

Anti-Masonry, 119. 

Antitariff convention 1832, 130. 

Athens, Ga., 101, 118. 

Atlanta, 142. 

Augusta, 155, 202. 

Augusta Chronicle, 104, 137. 

Augusta Herald, 92. 

Baldwin, Abraham, 17, 19, 20. 

Bank of the United States, 113, 143, 145. 

Baptist Church, 102. 

Bartow, Francis S., 203. 

Bell, John, 188, 191, 206, 208. 

Benton, T. H., 05. 

Berrien, John McPher.son, 120, 129, 130, 133, 

134, 140, 149, 106, 167, 179. 
Boudinot, Elias, 85. 
Breckinridge, J. C, 188, 206, 207. 
Briggs, Isaac, 21. 
Brooks, Preston S., 183. 
Brown, John, 186. 
Brown, Joseph E., 180, x81, 187, 189, 194, 198, 

208. 
Brown, Nathan, 21. 
Buchanan, James, 179, 199. 
Buford, Major, 173. 
Bulloch County, 141. 
Burke County, 21. 
Butler, Elizur, 80, 83. 

C 

Calhoun, J. C, 86, 119, 120, 123, 128, 132, 143, 

146, 148, 150, 103. 
California, 162, 103. 
Camden County, Ga., 21, 44. 
Campbell, Duncan G., 55, 56, 59, 69. 
Canals, 114, 141. 
Cass, Lewis, 150. 



Central of Georgia Railroad, 141. 
Cession of Georgia's western lands, 34. 
Charleston convention 1860, 188. 
Charlton, Thomas, U. P., 110. 
Chattahoochee River, 44, 48. 
Cherokee Indians, 40, 66-86. 

lands of, 66. 

early cessions, 66. 

peaceable disposition, 68. 

treaty of 1817, 68. 

treaty of 1819, 69. 

refusal to cede more lands, 69. 

chiefs, 70. 

progress in civilization, 71. 

gold mines, 72. 

aggressions of Georgia, 73. 

Tassel's case, 75. 

ease of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 76. 

the missionaries, 79. 

Graves's case, 84. 

factions in the tribe, 85. 

treaty of New Echota 1835, 86. 

removal west of the Mi.ssi.ssippi, 80. 
Cherokee Nation r. Georgia, case of, 76. 
Cherokee Phoenix, 79. 
Chickamauga, settlement of Cherokees at, 

60, 67. 
Chickasaw Indians, 39. 
Chisolm V. Georgia, case of, 24, 25, 26, 28. 
Christmas, Robert, 21. 
Choctaw Indians, 39. 
Clarke, Elijah, 47, 48, 06. 
Clarke, Elijah, the younger, 95, 98. 
Clarke, John, 53, 95, 97, 100-105, 112. 
Clarke party, 98-112, 125. 
Clarke County, 74. 

Clay, Henry, 80, 108, 143, 146, 150, 163. 
Clayton, Augustin S., 74, 129, 130, 133. 
Cobb, Howell, 163-166, 189, 193, 199, 202, 207, 

208, 209. 
Cobb, Thomas R. R., 185, 196, 200, 203, 204. 
Coleraine, treaty of, 45. 
Colonization society, African, 115, 158, 159. 
Colony of Georgia, 151. 
Color, free persons of, 155, 156. 
Colquitt, Walter T., 146. 
Columbia County, 31, 105. 
Compromise of 1850, 163. 
Confederacy, Southern, 205. 
Constitution of Georgia 1789, 22, 23. 

221 



222 



INDEX. 



Constitutional Union party of 1851, 166. 
Constitutional Union party 1860, 188, 191, 206. 
Cooper, Mark A., 146, 147. 
Cornells, Alexander, 50. 
Cotton, 142. 

cotton belt, 107. 

crop, 130. 

culture, 106, 158. 

factories in Georgia, 118, 133. 

gin, 106. 

prices, 1815-1821, 100. 
Crackers, Georgia, 89. 
Crawford, George W., 147. 
Crawford, Joel, 111, 136. 
Crawford, Nathaniel M., 203. 
Crawford, William Harris, 31, 94, 101, 108, 

119, 124, 125, 134. 
Crawford party, 98. 
Creek Indians, 30, 39-65. 

lands, 39. 

early treaties, 39. 

depredations, 39. 

treaty of Augusta, 1783, 40. 

treaty of Galphinton, 40. 

treaty of Shoulderbone, 41. 

hostilities, 41. 

treaty of New York, 42. 

treaty of Coleraine, 45, 46. 

treaty of Fort Wilkinson, 48. 

progress toward civilization, 60. 

conspiracy, 50. 

Creek war of 1813-14,51. 

treaty of Fort Jackson, 51. 

cession of 1818, 52. 

refuse further cessions, 55. 

the Red Sticks, 55, 57. 

treaty of Indian Spring, 1825, 66, 59. 

treaty of Washington, 1826, 69. 

cession of remaining lands, 65. 
Crowell, T. Y., 56, 108. 

D. 

Darien, Ga., 87. 

Davis, Jenkin, 21. 

Dawson, W. C, 147. 

Democratic party, 138, 143-151, 162-192. 

Democrats, 35, 172-176. 

De wit's Corner, treaty of 1777, 66. 

Dooly, Murry, 98, 104. 

Douglas, Stephen A., 171, 172, 176, 188, 191, 

206. 
Dred Scott case, 175, 176. 

E. 

Ebenezer, Ga., settlement, 87. 
Effingham County, 96. 
Eleventh amendment to United States Con- 
stitution, 28. 
Elliott, John, 21. 
I*;mancipation, 115, 156, 158. 
Emanuel County, 141. 
Emigrant aid societies, 173. 



Federal convention, 1787, Georgia delegates 

in, 17-20. 
Federalist party, 90, 91, 93, 104. 
Few, William, 17. 
Fillmore, Millard, 150, 179. 
Fletcher v. Peck, case of, 36, 38. 
Flint River, 44. 

Forsyth, John, 72, 110, 118, 130, 134. 
Frederica, Ga., settlement, 87. 
Fremont, J. C, 179. 
Frontier, The, 49, 89, 104, 141, 153. 

G. 
Gaines, Edmund P., 57, 58. 
Galphinton, treaty of, 40, 42, 45, 46. 
Garrison. William Lloyd, 158, 160. 
Georgia Gazette, 18, 20, 21. 
Georgia Journal, 101, 124. 
Georgia platform, 1850, 165, 172. 
Georgia Railroad, 141. 
Georgia State constitution, 1789, 22, 23. 
Georgia, University of, 93, 94, 99, 117, 125, 129. 
German settlers in Georgia, 87. 
Gilmer, George R., 73, 75, 79, 86, 110, 124-127, 

134, 135, 139, 182. 
Glynn County, 21, 44. 
Gold, discovery of, in Georgia, 72. 
Graves, James, case of, 84. 
Greene County, 21. 
Gwinnett County, 80. 

H. 

Habersham, Richard W., 61, 62. 

Hall County, 75. 

Handley, George, 21. 

Hard times 1815, 100. 

Harris, H. R., 196. 

Harris, W. L., 196. 

Harrison, William Henry, 146. 

Hawkins, Benjamin, 49, 52. 

Haynes, Thomas, 124, 125, 126. 

Hill, Benjamin H., 179, 180, 191, 203, 208. 

Hillery, Charles, 21. 

Hobby, W. J.,104. 

Homespun clothing, 99, 196. 

Houston, William, 17. 

Howell, Caleb, 21. 

I, 

Indians, 16, 30, 39-86. 

Cherokees, 40, 66-86. 

Chickasaws, 39. 

Choctaws, 39. 

Creeks, 30, 39-66. 

status of, 43. 

title to lands, 29, 35, 37. 
Indian Spring, treaty of 1821, 53. 

treaty of 1825, 56, 59, 60. 
Internal improvements, 114. 
Irish -settlers in Georgia, 87. 
Iverson, Alfred, 185. 



INDEX. 



223 



J. 

Jackson, Andrew, 51, 68, 73, 75, 79, 82, 84, 

108, 119, 120, 124; 128, 129, 132, 138, 143, 

114. 
Jackson, James, 31, 42, 91, 93, 94. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 35, 68, 92. 
Jenkins, Charles J., 146, 167, 168, 179, 202, 

208. 
Jolm Brown's raid, 185. 
Johnson, Herschel V., 168, 178, 188, 189, 190 

193, 203, 207. 

K. 

Kansas, 171, 174, 176, 177. 
Kansas-Nebraska act, J 74. 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, 171, 172, 173. 
Kemble, Frances, 155. 
Kentucky resolutions, 91. 
Know-nothing: party, 177-180. 

JL.. 
Land lottery, 107. 
Land speculation, 30. 
Laurens County, 105. 
Lawton, A. R., 201. 
Liberty County, 21. 
Lincoln, Abraham, 188, 191, 198, 206. 
Lincoln County, 104, 137. 
Locke, John, 151. 
Lumpkin, Joseph Henry, 139. 
Lumpkin, Wilson, 80-84, 97, 102, 125-127, 135, 
136, 141, 146, 162, 167 179, 201. 

McDonald, Charles J., 147, 164, 166. 

McDuffie, George, 118. 

McGillioray, 41, 42, 45. 

Mcintosh, William, 56, 57. 

Manufactures, domestic, 99, 114. 

Manumission, 156. 

Marshall, John, 36, 74, 77, 31, 83. 

Martin, Luther, 18. 

Matthews, George, 21, 45, 47. 

Maxwell, James, 21. 

Mercer, Je.sse, 102. 

Meigs, Josiah, 92. 

Merriwether, James, 55, 56, 59, 69. 

Militia of Georgia, 187. 

Milledgeville, Ga., 102, 103, 126, 130, 137, 141, 

190. 
Milton, John, 21. 

Missionaries to the Cherokee Indians, 79. 
Mississippi territory, 33. 
Missouri compromise, 171, 174, 176. 
Mitchell, David B., 50, 157. 
Monroe, James, .52, 69, 70. 
Montgomery County, 105, 141. 

isr. 

Nebraska, 171. 

Negro colonization, 158. 

Negroes, 105. 



Negroes, free, 155, 156. 
New Echota, 79. 

treaty of 1835, 86. 
New England, 114, 183, 193. 
New York, treaty of 1790, 42, 43, 45, 47. 
Newspapers, Georgia, 1831, 128. 
Niles' Register, editor of, 127. 
Nisbet, E. A., 179, 208. 
North Carolina, immigrants from, 96. 
Nullification, 121, 123, 128, 132, 133. 

O. 
Ocomulgee River, 44, 45, 48. 
Oconee River, 30, 40, 45, 47, 48. 
Oglethorpe, James, 87, 151. 
Oglethorpe County, 129. 
Olmsted, Frederick L., 155. 
Osborne, Henry, 21. 
Overby, B. H., 178. 

Paris, treaty of 1783, 29. 
Pendleton, Nathaniel, 17. 
Persons of color, free, 155, 156. 
Pierce, Franklin, 168. 
Pierce, William, 17, 19. 
Pinckney, C. C, 46. 
Polk, James K., 150. 
Poor whites, 96, 108. 
Powell, James, 21. 
Presidential election 1796, 91. 

1800, 92. 

1800 to 1828, 98. 

1836, 139. 

1840, 140, 145. 

1841, 150. 
1848, 150. 
1852, 167. 
1856, 175. 

1860, 188, 205, 206. 
Pulaski, Fort, 201. 

Q. 

Quitman, John A., 168. 

R. 

Railroad, Georgia, 141. 

Central of Georgia, 141. 

Western and Atlantic, 142. 

Atlanta and West Point, 142. 
Randolph, John, 24, 35, 37. 
Relief laws 1841, 147. 

Republican (anti- Federal) party, 90, 91, 93. 
Republican party 18.56-1861, 175, 177, 187, 188. 
Richmond County, 21, 104, 109. 
Ridge, John, 85. 
Ridge, Major, 85. 
Ross, John, 85, 86. 

S. 
St. Marys, Ga., settlement, 87. 
Sanford, J. W. A., 79. 
Savannah, 87, 137, 155. 



224 



IJS^DEX. 



Savannah River, 39. 

Scotch settlers in Georgia, 87. 

Scott, Winfield, 86, 167. 

Seagrave, James, 21. 

Seagrove, James, 45. 

Secession convention of Georgia, 200-205, 209. 

Secession, question of its radicalism, 207, 209. 

theory of, 193. 
Seminole Indians, 39. 
Sequoyah (George Guess), 71. 
Settlement of upland Georgia, 88. 
Sherman, W. T., 92. 
Shoulderbone, treaty of, 41, 45, 46. 
Slave insurrection, fear of, 153, 186. 
Slave regulations, 152-154. 

police, 152. 

criminal law, 152. 

against education, 153. 

unenforced, 153. 
Slave trade, 20, 157, 205. 

interstate, 157. 
Slaveholders, 107, 111, 209. 
Slavery, 34, 116, 142, 151-161, 184, 185. 

in United States Territoritics, 174. 
Slaves, 105, 107, 139. 

family relations of. 154. 

price of, 184. 
South Carolina. 15, 19, 20, 117, li:0. 
Southern Rights party, 1851, 166. 
State rights, 37, 41, 121. 
State Rights party, 112-142. 
State sovereignty, 31, 122, 123. 
Steamboats, 141. 

Stephens, Alexander H., 146, 148, 164, 168- 
170, 172, 178, 179, 185, 191, 195, 203, 204, 
207. 
Sullivan, Florence, 21. 
Sumner, Charles, 183. 

'X\ 

Talbot, Matthew, 102, 110. 

Tallassee district, the, 35, 42, 48. 

Tariff, the, 116, 120, 122, 128, 129, 133, 149. 

Tattnall County, 105, 111. 

Taylor, Zachary, 160. 

Tecumseh, 49. 

Telfair, Edward, 21, 26, 44, 45. 

Texas, 150; 162, 163. 

Tobacco culture, 88. 



Toombs, Robert, 146-148, 162, 164, 166-170, 
178, 179, 183, 190, 191, 195, 200, 201, 203, 
205, 207. 

Tories in Georgia, 89. 

Trott, James, 80. 

Troup, George M., 55, 57, 58, 60-64, 70, 71, 96, 
98, 100-105, 112, 114, 119, 134, 138, 146. 

Troup party, 98, 101-112, 119, 125. 

Twiggs, General, 44. 

Tyler, John, 148. 

XJ. 

Union party, 112-142, 206. 
United States Bank, 113, 143, 145. 
University of Georgia, 93, 94, 99, 117, 125, 129. 

Van Buren, Martin, 86, 144-147. 
Virginia resolutions, 91. 
Virginia, immigrants from, 9(). 

Waddell, Moses, 181. 

Walker, Robert J., 175. 

Walton, George, 17, 21, 48. 

War of 1812, 38, 100. 

Warner, Hiram, 193. 

Washington, George, 31, 44, 46, 47, .59. 

Washington, treaty of, 1826, 59. 

Webster, Daniel, 86, 146, 103, 167, 168. 

Weed, Jacob, 21. 

Wereat, John, 21. 

Western and Atlantic Railroad, 142, 173. 

Western lands, cession, 1802, ,'?4. 

Whig party, 134, 143-151, 162-170, 172, 178. 

White, Hugh L., 139, 144. 

Wilkes County, 21, 47, 96, 137. 

Wilkinson, Fort, treaty of, 48. 

Wilmot proviso, 164, 169. 

Wire-grass region, 141. 

Wirt, William, 75, 77, 81. 

Worcester, S. A., 79, 80, 83. 

Wright, James, 83. 

Y. 

Yancey, William Lowndes, 164, 188, 191, 193. 
Yazoo land sale, 29-32, 35, 48. 
controversy, 91, 93. 



